Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidale absence, through illness, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. GEORGE THOMAS, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking designed to solve the housing problem, within the lifetime of this Parliament.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): Our comprehensive review of housing finance will enable us to determine what needs to be done and to develop well-founded longer-term policies. Meanwhile we shall pursue vigorously the steps that we have set in train to revive both public and private housebuilding and, through the Housing Act 1974, we shall concentrate on improving conditions in the areas where housing stress is at its worst.

Mr. Rooker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that many people are still living in prefabricated dwellings which were supposed to have a life of only 10 years? Many people like them and many of them are little palaces, but is he serious, according to his widely reported speech two or three weeks ago, in flying a kite to the effect that a solution of our housing problem is to be by way of building many more fabricated dwellings?

Mr. Crosland: No, that was a misunderstanding of what I said. In my constituency there is a substantial estate of

people living in prefabs. If we tried to move them out there would be an absolute riot. What I was reported as saying was not the main concept that I had in mind, which was to express a conviction that we could, by a better use of system building, for example, build substantially more houses not only more cheaply but, even more important, more quickly than at present.

Mr. Michael Latham: As expectations continually rise and as the demand for subsidised accommodation is limitless, what does the Minister understand by the expression, "solve the housing problem"?

Mr. Crosland: It is an expression which I have never used. I would not dream of using it, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. As standards and expectations increase, so the demand for housing will increase.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Secretary of State agree that for first-time buyers an even greater obstacle than high interest rates is the impossibility of finding a deposit? Will he consider helping local authorities and building societies with Government guarantees or loans so that they can provide 100 per cent. mortgages?

Mr. Crosland: I am distressed to be the Secretary of State and not my hon. Friend's right hon. Friend. I am not clear what I have done to upset him. I appreciate that I frequently upset him, alas. I agree that of the various factors inhibiting private house building—namely, 11 per cent. mortgages, the availability of mortgages, the price of a house and the deposit—the deposit is, in the majority of cases, the critical factor. I am now discussing with the building societies, with no commitment at all, how we can ease the situation for the first-time buyer.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to local authorities in connection with his stated policy about provisions of new forms of low-cost housing, mobile homes sites, &c.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): As the hon. Member is aware, the Department is conducting an urgent review of possible ways of getting more houses built


more quickly and more cheaply. Policy questions and advice to local authorities will be considered in the light of the outcome of the review.

Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for that answer. I should like him to know that I, for one—I am sure that many hon. Members and many people in various constituencies share my view—welcome the speech that the Minister's right hon. Friend made at Brighton at the end of October. The need is for immediate homes. Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend kindly issue some instructions to local authorities to get on with the job and provide mobile homes and prefabricated homes immediately?

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend is constantly making speeches which either are welcomed or should be welcomed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute. We are urgently considering the matter about which my right hon. Friend spoke. While we shall not issue instructions to local authorities, we shall issue advice.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of misconception about the nature of industrialised house building? Will he and his Department do all that they can to disabuse the minds of those people who associate industrialised building with postwar prefabs? In fact, there is no comparison, and many of our constituents would be delighted to live in such houses.

Mr. Kaufman: It is a fact that industrialised building can provide satisfactory homes, and people would cherish them. We want to ensure that such homes are built to a satisfactory standard. It is true that the percentage of industrialised homes completed has fallen dramatically in the past four years. That is why my right hon. Friend drew attention to the matter.

Mr. Fox: May I tell the Minister that there will be the fullest support from the Opposition for any attempt to provide the sort of low-cost housing which is necessary? However, in the review, which we hope will be brought forward very quickly, will he impress upon local authorities that a "wait-and-see" policy will absolutely ruin any proposals? Is he aware that local authorities are giving

planning permission for permanent caravans but are refusing to give planning permission for the type of home that we are considering?

Mr. Kaufman: The Conservative Party when in office did not adopt a "wait-and-see" policy. It adopted a "do-not-build" policy, which was also its policy in the election campaign in October.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what year of population has been used as the basis of the 1975–76 rate support grant.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): The population figures will be those for June this year.

Mr. Morris: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he explain what exactly is the problem in using the current year's figures, or even, more preferably, those of a year ahead, because either of them would be considerably fairer to every local authority, not least those which are expanding, such as in Northamptonshire?

Mr. Silkin: I should, perhaps, correct one misapprehension. Whatever else I am, I am not "learned". The hon. Gentleman has a point. It is a rather difficult problem to resolve. One can, as has been done in the past, use information that is fairly old, and of course it penalises areas whose populations are increasing, such as his own. But if we were to use, for example, next year's population figures, we should be in another dilemma—one which has occurred in the past when local authorities complained, with some justification, that the very late time at which they received the data made it almost impossible for them to deal appropriately with the grant which they would be receiving.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the figures being used this year for the rate support grant are a substantial improvement on those used last year, when the needs element was based on 1972 population figures and meant grave discrimination against expanding areas because their figures lacked the dynamic of population growth? Will he accept the congratulations of all


of us on the Government side of the House who welcome the advance in the population statistics?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a recommendation of the official grants working committee. It was the best compromise that it could find.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is yet in a position to announce his proposals to protect ratepayers against further substantial increases next year.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he can now say what plans he has for increasing the rate support grant to local authorities for the financial year 1975–76; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of his negotiations with local authorities on the level of rate support grant for 1975–76.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) on 26th November. This gave details of my proposed rate support grant settlement for 1975–76 and additional grant for 1974–75.—[Vol. 882, c. 154.]

Mr. Rost: How does the Secretary of State intend to protect ratepayers against some of the unnecessary and wasteful expenditure by Labour-controlled local authorities?

Mr. Crosland: We have protected ratepayers by giving a rate of grant of 66½ per cent.—far higher than was ever contemplated by the hon. Gentleman's party when in Government—and by adding an additional £350 million once-and-for-all special element in the increase order. If the hon. Gentleman will speak to any of his ratepayers, or to his county treasurer, or the chairman of his local finance committee, I guarantee that he will find that the settlement was regarded as being much more generous than any of them had expected.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the county of Derbyshire was, until recently, for six years Tory-con-

trolled and run by the friends of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost)? Is he further aware that in their final year of office the members of that council spent £70,000 on installing a bar in the members' room? Is he also aware that when the chairman of the county council had been thrown out of his seat he inserted in the local newspaper an advertisement urging all independent-minded ratepayers to join his association in order to hammer the Labour Party, although it had had nothing to do with the rate increase——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Question Time is for hon. Members to receive information, rather than give it.

Mr. Hurd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that many local authorities will simply not be able to confine their rate increases to an average figure of 25 per cent., because of the high cost of council house building programmes on which he has encouraged them to embark? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman bring himself to swallow a word or two and encourage those authorities to finance new programmes by allowing council house tenants to buy their own homes?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. Our policy on this matter is perfectly clear. We do not think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests can be right in any area where there is a significant shortage of rented accommodation. Unfortunately, that definition covers a very large part of the country at the moment. With regard to the ratepayers in the area which the hon. Gentleman represents, I must point out that had we not taken the special measures this year the ratepayers would have faced average increases not of 25 per cent. but of 70 per cent. or 75 per cent.

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the response of the local authority representatives to his meeting with them on 26th November last.

Mr. Crosland: Despite a number of reservations, they were good enough to say that the settlement was as generous as could be hoped for in current economic


circumstances, and that they appreciated the extensive and early consultations which led up to it.

Mr. Freud: I welcome the relief given in the rate support grant, but does the right hon. Gentleman intend to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the extension of relief to domestic ratepayers for the forthcoming financial year?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I should hope that that would not be necessary. This year we have given an extra £2,000 million compared with last year and the taxpayer is paying a record proportion of the cost of the services from which the ratepayer gains. I do not think that it would be right, on top of that, to ask my right hon. Friend for a further sum of money.

Dr. Marshall: How soon will individual local authorities know how much they will receive within the rate support grant for 1975–76?

Mr. Crosland: Very early in the new year.

Football Hooliganism

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his discussions have made with the Football Association, the Football League, the police and others concerned towards a reduction of hooliganism at football matches and on football specials run by British Rail.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to improve means of dealing with football hooliganism.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): We have concentrated first on devising means of ensuring that movement on football terraces is restricted as much as possible and of keeping members of the public off the playing area except in emergency. Recommendations on these lines have been circulated to all first and second division clubs by the Football Association and the Football League. Many of the principal clubs have already acted upon them or are proposing to do so as soon as it practicable. I shall continue to pursue their implementation. British Rail and the police are co-operat-

ing fully with my working party on the problems which arise outside the grounds.

Mr. Monro: I thank the Minister for that statement. Will he accept that I am glad that in general there has been an improvement since the earlier part of the season? Is he aware that I shall join with him in any measures which can be shown to be helpful to the situation? Does he agree that at present we must give the maximum support to the police and the magistrates in their efforts to defeat hooliganism, especially outside grounds and on railway trains?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. In fact, we have had about 10 weeks now in which the position has improved considerably inside grounds—apart from one or two sporadic outbursts. To a large extent the problem has been transferred to outside the grounds. We are determined to get on top of that, although in the main it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that I have a particular concern in this matter because of recent events in my constituency, including one particularly tragic event? Does he not agree that one of the best means of preventing hooliganism would be to enable magistrates to impose sentences which prevented the hooligans concerned from attending—for the rest of the season or an appropriate period—any further matches in which their favoured club was playing? I understand that that can be done in respect of those under the age of 17. Are the Government considering whether powers should be given to magistrates to enable that to be done generally?

Mr. Howell: Everyone to whom I spoke on my tour of the country advised me that there was no difficulty about the adequacy of the powers. They did not ask for stiffer powers. I asked for the courts to implement the powers that they have. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the punishment would well fit the crime if people who commit a nuisance on Saturday afternoons were prevented from doing so, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. James Johnson: This year Hull City Football Club has twice played Manchester United, in my constituency, with


conspicuous success on the field, and there has been marked efficiency, on the pavements, by the police, much of which is due to the use of dogs. We in Hull believe that bullies and thugs fear police dogs. Will my hon. Friend bear this in mind in any discussions that he has with the Home Office?

Mr. Howell: If my hon. Friend's football team has played Manchester United twice this year, it must be financially well off by now. On the subject of police dogs, although we have discussed this matter, it is not a matter for me. There is some evidence that it is difficult to control spectators with dogs actually near them, because dogs cannot pick out offenders.

Mr. Dalyell: Even if Manchester United or Hull City are well off, what is happening about finance for the clubs to implement the recommendations on crowd safety?

Mr. Howell: That matter is being discussed within the Government at present. As the Bill proceeds from another place towards this place, I hope that we shall be able to make a statement in due course.

Local Planning

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to speed up his Department's decision-making on local planning and traffic issues.

Mr. John Silkin: Yes, Sir. These matters are kept under continuous review.

Mr. Lane: I am grateful for that reply, as far as it goes. However, is the Minister aware that Cambridge, possibly because it is the finest urban constituency in the country, is one of the places which suffers from the too deliberate tempo in Whitehall, with consequent feelings of great frustration locally? Will the right hon. Gentleman take a personal interest in improving this situation, for the sake of the closer relationship between local government and central Government, which all in East Anglia want to develop?

Mr. Silkin: I have received no complaints, either from the city or the county council. If the hon. Gentleman has any details of which he thinks I should

be made aware, I shall be grateful for them.

Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making a statement on the whole question of management and operational techniques used by local authorities and possibly stimulating them, which could ultimately have a very important effect on the co-ordination of decision-making at central Government level?

Mr. Silkin: I am bound to consider very carefully any suggestion that my hon. Friend may make, and certainly I shall bear that suggestion in mind.

Mr. Alison: Do the Minister's departmental records go back far enough to enable him to know whether the delay in making up his mind about the Tadcaster bypass is an all-time record or merely a record for this century?

Mr. Silkin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting in a supplementary question about Tadcaster following a Question about Cambridge. I should need notice of his question, because I do not know what the records were when his party was in power.

Mr. Channon: On average, how long does it take for planning appeals to be disposed of in the Department at present?

Mr. Silkin: It depends whether they are written or whether they are the result of public inquiries. However, it is somewhere between eight months and a year. What we have to bear in mind is one simple thing: as far as a public inquiry is concerned, the delay—or some delay-is the price that we pay, and rightly pay, for public involvement.

Road Hauliers (EEC Permits)

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making in obtaining from the EEC a sufficiently large allocation of permits for British international road hauliers; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said when the House debated this subject on 28th November.

Mr. Spence: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that I


have a constituency interest in this matter. What progress is being made with regard to the separate national permits to try to restore the 12½ per cent. cut made by Italy in the early part of this year? Second, does the hon. Gentleman consider that the permit system is being used as a means of artificially curtailing British exports to the Community?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the permit system is a relatively small part of the traffic between Britain and Europe, although it allows a certain amount of "tramping" within European countries. But 95 per cent. of the traffic going to Europe by lorry goes on bilateral permits, which is much more suitable in many ways for many of the hauliers in this country.

Mr. Dykes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that although these permits are a small proportion they are a very important beginning to what will develop in the future? Does he realise that that is why many hon. Members on this side think that the number of permits allocated is modest and that we should not be treated like the smaller countries in the Community, rather than Germany, France and Italy?

Mr. Carmichael: Of course we are certainly aware of the importance of the permits. When we first joined the Community we had only 7 per cent. of the total but my right hon. Friend last June managed to get this increased by 75 per cent. and we are now getting a much bigger proportion of the Community permits. More steps are being taken and we are hoping to get at least another 20 per cent. increase. This is a continuing process of trying to get more permits and freedom for British hauliers to take our goods abroad.

M1 (Widening)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects work to begin on the widening of the two-lane stretch of the Ml south of Bedfordshire; and when he expects the work to be completed.

Mr. Carmichael: This must depend upon the satisfactory outcome of the statutory processes which are presently delayed by the current review of the standard to which the motorway is to be constructed.

Mr. Madel: As this section of the Ml is dangerously overloaded with traffic, will the Minister consider issuing regulations, pending completion of the work, that heavy lorries must not use the fast lane, because when they do so, bunching and crashes are often caused on this section, usually on a Friday night?

Mr. Carmichael: I use this road frequently myself and I know the problem. But on a two-lane road to suggest that heavy lorries should not use the outside lane is a very serious matter. I would have to take advice from the TRRL and other traffic sources. Hold-ups on six miles of motorway, particularly on Friday nights, could cause serious congestion, accidents and irritation.

Prefabricated Houses

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reaction he has had from housing committees and others to his suggestion that the provision of prefabricated factory-built houses should be used as a speedy method for meeting the housing shortage.

Mr. Kaufman: What my right hon. Friend announced on 30th October was a review by the Department of possible ways of getting more accommodation provided more quickly and more cheaply. The review will include consideration of all kinds of accommodation. There is no commitment whatever to the use of any particular form.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. When he talks to local authority housing committees, will he point out not only that it would be useful to erect such houses but that useful in-filling could be done? We must try to get rid of the situation in which frightened pensioners are living in deserted slum clearance terraces, waiting for suitable pensioners' accommodation, as well as releasing a great number of three-bedroom council houses in which pensioners are living, but which they cannot look after, when no alternative accommodation has been supplied by the local authority.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend's wise words stem from a deep constituency knowledge of the people living in stress conditions, and we shall certainly bear in mind what he says.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the suggestion that I put to the Minister that the whole of the way in which allowances are paid to local authorities should be reviewed with the question of mobile homes in mind?

Mr. Kaufman: The question of finance and central Government subsidy to local authorities must be a factor in the review that we are conducting.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need to provide such homes for those who are left behind in road building schemes that are delayed, such as the West Bridge scheme in Leicester?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to yet another topic that is causing great concern. The question of people living in areas that have been blighted as a result of road programmes which are in doubt is a problem which must be considered by my Department.

Rate Relief

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce proposals designed to ensure that no ratepayer is entitled to domestic rate relief in respect of more than one home.

Mr. John Silkin: I have no plans to do so, but I will examine the proposal.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's willingness to examine the question. Does he not agree that in areas where the second home explosion is creating ghost villages it is seen as very unsatisfactory that public money should be used not to subsidise ordinary householders but to help pay for people's holidays, and that this development would be a logical consequence of withdrawal of other aid from second or holiday homes?

Mr. Silkin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My difficulty is that nothing could be done at the moment, administratively. This is a matter for legislation, and the House will appreciate that such a matter requires considerable care. But I shall examine the proposal.

Waste

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on what action he proposes to take to commence a national campaign against waste as outlined in his recent Green Paper.

Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend will be asking the Waste Management Advisory Council to consider, as a priority, the need for publicity to support an dencourage reclamation work throughout the community.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but is he willing to give a categorical assurance that local authorities will be able to go ahead with the surveys that are absolutely vital to the position concerning waste in their areas, and will he assure us that the Government accept the urgent need to limit imports, which could be achieved by vigorous prosecution of a war-on-waste campaign?

Mr. Howell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Finsberg: Are we to understand from that reply that the advisory council has been set up? If so, has it any membership drawn from environmental bodies?

Mr. Howell: I should have to have notice about a question concerning the people serving on the advisory council. I shall do my best to supply the information to the hon. Gentleman. I am almost certain that the answer to his question is "Yes", but I shall write to him on this.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The question was whether the council has been set up. May we have a direct answer to that question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot give an answer. We had better move to the next Question.

Canals and Waterways (Expenditure)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what capital expenditure on the improvement of canals and waterways is envisaged for the financial year 1975–76.

Mr. Denis Howell: Capital expenditure levels for the British Waterways Board and water authorities are determined as part of the annual review of public expenditure, the results of which will be published in the forthcoming White Paper. I have no information on the plans of independent waterway undertakings.

Mr. Hooley: In view of the immense economic and environmental advantages of inland waterway transport, will my hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that there is a reasonable allocation in this direction and perhaps a somewhat lower allocation for motorways?

Mr. Howell: Questions about the relativities of various forms of public expenditure are constantly under review by Ministers in my Department. Such considerations are never far from their minds.

Mr. Rossi: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department instituted a study to link the utilisation of waterways with the water resources programme so that the money to be spent on water resources for the drier parts of the country can be coupled with the use of those resources for transport also?

Mr. Howell: It is possibly a little too early to give a definite answer about that, although I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in constant discussion with the National Water Council on the principles which he has mentioned.

Lump Labour

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now issue a circular to local authorities advising them to ban lump labour from all local authority contracts.

Mr. Kaufman: The Government are urgently considering what action should be taken to tackle the abuses of the lump in the construction industry, and the question of advice to local authorities will need to be considered in the light of the measures that are applied generally.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that lump labour is a sore on the body of the construction industry? Is it not disgraceful that many local authorities still have not banned the use of lump labour within

their sites? Will he ask local authorities, as a matter of urgency, to stop the use of lump labour in local authority contracts?

Mr. Kaufman: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to dealing with the abuses of lump labour, and legislation will be brought forward in this Session of Parliament. Local authorities, a large number of which, I am happy to say, are Labour-controlled, have the right to decide their own policies. In advance of our legislation, it does not seem right to us that we should have two bites at this cherry.

Mr. Costain: Will the hon. Gentleman define lump labour? Does he not appreciate that, like sin, it means different things to different people? Is he aware that many local authority building contracts prohibit what his hon. Friends call lump labour, and it is not used?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a document which adequately defines lump labour.

Highway Code

Mr. Berry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Green Paper on the Highway Code.

Mr. Carmichael: In January, Sir.

Mr. Berry: The Minister of Transport said that the code would be issued before the end of this year. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman did not expect that he would still be the Minister, but we regret the delay. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the House has adequate time to discuss the Green Paper—unlike the last time when a new Highway Code was introduced by the Labour Government—and that all interested parties have a chance to express their views on this important subject?

Mr. Carmichael: A Green Paper is being published because of the difficulties which were experienced when the Highway Code was last published. It was discovered that the House had no right to accept or reject it. We expected to have the draft code before the end of the year, but colour printing of a very high standard is required and it has taken longer than expected. There will be time to debate the code in both Houses.

Mr. Fry: Is the hon. Gentleman also considering what steps should be taken to ensure that in future the provisions of the code are obeyed somewhat better than they now are by many individuals? There is not much use in publishing recommendations if they are not carried out.

Mr. Carmichael: The Department and all of us should at all times be concerned about the question of driving behaviour. However, the code is merely a code of conduct which we hope motorists and road users will follow. No compulsion is involved in the code, and I do not think that we would wish to extend it in that way.

Timber Frame Houses

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to all building firms which are building various types of timber frame houses, with a view to seeking ways to expedite a solution of the present housing shortage.

Mr. Kaufman: While I cannot undertake a tour such as my hon. Friend proposes, I assure him that my Department is in close touch will all forms of house building, including timber frame construction.

Mr. Hamilton: Why is it necessary to import houses of this kind from Norway when there are firms in this country which are building such houses, which have a high insulation quality which should be taken into account when the Government are considering their new housing policy? Will my hon. Friend consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and, notably, the firm in my constituency, about which I have sent him details, which is building these houses and could absorb much more labour in building more of them if given the opportunity?

Mr. Kaufman: We are well aware of the virtues of such houses, especially in terms of insulation. I am also aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the case he has in mind. Our view is that, consistent with cost, it is always best to buy British.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Would it not be a good thing to promote schemes which had reached a certain standard of satisfaction in construction and insulation—in

other words, to promote designs which could be approved and which met the required standard? Would not this enable matters to proceed on a narrow front, rather than have a proliferation of house types?

Mr. Kaufman: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a most interesting speech which I made on the motion for the Adjournment a few months ago.

Mortgages

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of people who will purchase a property on mortgage for the first time in 1975; and if he will make a statement on the Government's measures he plans to assist them.

Mr. Kaufman: No official estimate is made of the future number of first-time purchasers, as this depends upon a wide range of variable factors. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 13th November 1974.—[Vol. 881, c. 393.]

Mr. McCrindle: In its election manifesto the Labour Party promised a national housing finance agency. In addition to saying what progress has been made in the creation of that body, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how it is planned to slot its activities into the activities of the building societies; whether the idea is that such an agency should assist with the deposit required to buy a house in the form of a grant rather than a loan; and whether it is intended that the agency should be authorised to advance money at below the market rate to assist first-time purchasers?

Mr. Kaufman: To answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question I should need to make yet another interesting speech in an Adjournment debate. We are at work on the plans to fulfil the pledge in our manifesto. We very much hope that we shall be able to reverse the disastrous slump which occurred while the Conservative Government were in office, during which loans to first-time purchasers fell from 405,000 to only 93,000 in the first half of this year.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many first-time buyers obtain their housing loans from local authorities and that the current local authority lending rate is not 9½ per cent. or 11 per cent., but 14 per cent. or 15 per cent.? Does he consider it just that people on the lowest incomes should pay the highest interest rate? Has he anything further to add to the statement of the Minister on 13th November, that vigorous discussions were being conducted on this matter?

Mr. Kaufman: I have something further to add, and I shall be adding it if and when my hon. Friend's Question is reached.

Mr. Scott: Have not the Government got their priorities completely wrong? Instead of producing proposals which have dried up the market in furnished accommodation and strangled house building by the threat of nationalising development land, would it not be better if the Government were to produce concrete proposals to help house buyers, and particularly first-time house buyers?

Mr. Kaufman: If I did not know the hon. Gentleman as a man of moderation and sensibility, his intervention would strike me as at minimum impertinent, considering that under the Conservative Party last year the mortgage interest rate rose three times, and that house prices rose by 113 per cent. while his party was in office.

Mr. McCrindle: To give the Minister the opportunity of telling the House what he has so signally failed to tell us this afternoon, I wish to tell the House that I beg leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a customary form of words to use when an hon. Member wishes to give notice of his intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider proposing the removal of some of the statutory obligations of local authorities in order to reduce next year's rating burden.

Mr. John Silkin: No, Sir. It would be premature to do this until the Layfield Committee reports.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend's assessment that rates will rise by only 25 per cent. is a cruel farce in the light of his answer to me earlier this week that the special rate relief for domestic ratepayers will be discontinued in 1975–76? Are the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend aware that we may all have to choose between the decimation of statutory services, including the education service, and facing the first tax strike in this country?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has put his supplementary question with his customary moderation. When the figure of 25 per cent. was mentioned—it has been mentioned on several occasions— my right hon. Friend has specifically stated, repeatedly, that 25 per cent. is the average. We shall have to see what happens. An average means that some will pay less and some will pay more.
The hon. Gentleman put several points in what I prefer to regard as an intervention rather than a supplementary question. One of them was about teachers' salaries——

Mr. Pardoe: No.

Hon. Members: Education.

Mr. Silkin: Education, I am sorry. I imagined that teachers' salaries were used for education. I understand that there was a proposal during the election campaign—it may have come from both parties opposite—that teachers' salaries should be paid from a central fund rather than by local government, and I think the words used were "in the immediate term". That would come to about £1,000 million. My right hon. Friend is giving to local authorities next year an increase of not £1,000 million but £2,000 million.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we pursue the logic of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and altogether removed teachers' salaries from the rates, the main beneficiaries would not be domestic ratepayers but commercial and industrial ratepayers, who have already received substantial benefit from my right hon. Friend's Budget?

Mr. Silkin: That may or may not be true, but my views are not important. What is important in this connection is the Layfield Committee's Report. That was why the Layfield Committee of Inquiry was set up, and it will answer in due course.

South-West Region (Planning Structure)

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will postpone a decision on the future planning structure of the South-West Region, pending further discussions and consultations with regional organisations following their rejection of the South-West Economic Planning Council "Strategic Settlement Pattern for the South-West".

Mr. John Silkin: The region's local authorities and a wide range of interested organisations have been invited to comment on the council's strategic settlement pattern report. There is no question of any decision until all these consultations have been completed.

Mr. Hannam: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction in the South-West at the conclusions drawn by the economic planning council, especially with regard to the massive population increase proposed for areas of Devon and Cornwall? Is he aware that consultations have not taken place with amenity and general public organisations? Will he ensure that they do take place?

Mr. Silkin: I have said that one would need to defer a decision until consultations have properly taken place and we are in a position to assess the result. I understand the argument about population, but the fall in the replacement of population by what I might call the direct method is to some extent mitigated by an increase in population from net migration. These are points which we shall have to go into.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that in the report a major population growth is anticipated for South-East Dorset? Is he also aware that as a result of the local government boundary redrawing the present county boundary sits right in the middle of a built-up area? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure initially that the Department of Industry comes to a quick

decision about the location of county boundaries in relation to economic planning council areas, and will he thereafter review either the county boundary or the South-East Dorset proposals?

Mr. Silkin: One must take into account the fact that areas and populations—and what is done in those areas—change from time to time and must be constantly under review. The question of boundaries is not for me but for the Boundary Commission.

House Building

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with current levels of local authority housebuilding.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) and Bols-over (Mr. Skinner) on 13th November 1974.—[Vol. 881, c. 382–4.]

Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he not agree that all our energies must be channelled into local authority building? Will he impress upon local authorities the need for emergency measures to be taken to reduce housing waiting lists? Whenever hon. Members hold a surgery they are all badgered by people expressing the need for more local authority housing.

Mr. Crosland: Sir, as I have told the House before, I am urgently considering what further initiatives the Government may take to encourage local authority house building, but I must add that, while I agree that that is the No. 1 priority, I also want to encourage private house building.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not the fact that every council house which is built causes immense public subsidies to flow and has the effect of putting up the rates even more? Now that the two General Elections are over, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about increasing council house rents and reinstituting the Housing Finance Act and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act, which were moving towards making people who live in council houses pay the true economic cost of them—and why should they not?

Mr. Crosland: On the first point, I fear that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge must be confined to reading the speeches of his right hon. Friends. The figures constantly used during the election campaign— quoted from the Housing Research Foundation—as to the relative cost to the taxpayer of a new council house and a new owner-occupied house, were grossly misleading. In reply to the second point, relating to what we propose to do about rents, the hon. Gentleman does not follow our procedures very closely, otherwise he would know that the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill is now in Committee.

Waste Paper

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he proposes to give to local authorities and voluntary organisations about the collection of waste paper in the light of the Green Paper entitled "War on Waste" and the recent reluctance of paper mills in Southampton and elsewhere to buy waste paper offered to them.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am aware that there is fluctuation in the demand and prices being offered for certain grades of waste paper at the moment. I believe it is preferable to await the report of the Government's Advisory Group on Waste Paper Recycling before attempting to give substantive advice on this question.

Mr. Gould: Does my hon. Friend accept that it will be extremely difficult to persuade local authorities such as mine to undertake waste paper collection unless they can be convinced that it is economic? Will he have consultations with the industry with a view to making sure that there is a proper market for waste paper?

Mr. Howell: We accept those factors. I am advised that there has been a little difficulty with group five, which is a mixture of newspapers and magazines, but 100,000 tons of group five waste paper were collected this year out of a total of 300,000 tons. For 1975 an additional 250,000 tons of waste paper will be required, including another 80,000 tons from group five which is causing temporary difficulties.

Mr. Rossi: Why cannot the Government take the initiative regarding certain long-term contracts between local autho-

rities and the industry to ensure a constant supply of waste paper and, at times when there is a glut, seek adequate storage arrangements on a regional basis and assist local authorities in that way?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's record in this matter hardly stands out as a shining example to all. We are taking the initiative that the previous Government failed to take. Indeed, there is no glut at the moment. As I stated, we need all the waste paper collected, and we are taking the initiative with the industry to bring that about.

New Palace Yard

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made with the surfacing of New Palace Yard.

Mr. Kaufman: The preparation and planting of the central area are in hand and should be completed by the end of April. The remaining work, laying granite setts in the roadway and facing the retaining wall with slate, is due to begin in March.

Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that it looks as though someone is trying to set up a fish-breeding farm or salt pans in New Palace Yard? When are we to see the end of this monstrous waste of public money?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend reminds me of what the Pope said to Michelangelo when he was painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Fortunately, the outcome of that exercise was at least aesthetically more pleasing than what we have at the moment in New Palace Yard. I concur in my hon. Friend's view that the present situation in New Palace Yard is part of the unacceptable face of accepting House of Commons decisions carried through late at night on the nod—decisions which ought to have been thought about more deeply.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the granite mentioned by the hon. Gentleman be imported or home-produced? If it is to be imported, what will be the cost to the balance of payments? If Hanter Gantick granite from Cornwall can be used in the construction of London Bridge, why cannot it be used in the construction of New Palace Yard?

Mr. Kaufman: One reason why the cost of this white elephant has escalated to the extent that it has is the pressure by hon. Gentlemen to use costly materials from their constituencies in its construction. I have caused new investigations to be made into this matter. We are seeking to get the best possible granite for the lowest possible cost, whatever its origin. There is a possibility—no more than that —that we may import the granite from Portugal, which is now an acceptable place from which to buy things.

Mr. Dalyell: What on earth did the Pope say to Michelangelo?

Mr. Kaufman: I refer my hon. Friend to the screen play, "The Agony and the Ecstasy", pointing out that that was in English whereas the Pope presumably said it in Latin.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that even Michelangelo started with a mess, but got the right results in the end? Will the hon. Gentleman be serious and confirm that the landscaping scheme was agreed to by this House after a lengthy debate in which many of his hon. Friends took part, and that it embodies every suggestion made, except for the two tennis courts?

Mr. Kaufman: I accept that we are carrying out the will of the House. I hope that when hon. Gentlemen opposite criticise the expenditure they will accept that it was the clear will of the House, carried out with the concurrence of the hon. Gentleman.

Criterion Theatre

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will refer the future of the Criterion Theatre to the Government Advisory Committee on theatres.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. Advice from the committee on current proposals could be held to prejudice any subsequent decision that I might take.

Mr. Finsberg: What is the purpose of the Advisory Committee on Theatres? Surely it is hypocritical to invite people to serve on that body and not refer to them the most important issue of the preservation of the Criterion Theatre?

Mr. Crosland: I confess that the purpose of the committee is unclear. It was set up not by me but by my immediate predecessor. It is not completely clear to me what purpose my predecessor had in mind. This is something that we are discussing with the committee. Why we did not consult the committee is a serious question. The Criterion Theatre could come to me for decision either if I called the decision in or if an application to the GLC from the Westminster council was refused and Westminster then appealed to me. As I have to make a judicial decision at the end of the day, it seems to me and to my advisers that it would be wrong for me formally to consult the committee on this question.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider calling in this application, because many theatres in London are being destroyed with no justification whatsoever? This building has an architectural value which we should be loth to lose, let alone its theatrical advantage at the present time.

Mr. Crosland: I am seriously considering whether to call in the application. Whether I do or not, I assure my hon. Friend that I am taking a very serious personal interest in the future of the Criterion Theatre and would challenge nothing that she said about the importance of this matter.

Mr. Channon: The House will be grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a close personal interest in the problem. Is he aware that there is great public concern about the future not only of the Criterion Theatre but of other theatres in London?

Mr. Crosland: I am well aware of this concern, and wholly share it.

Mr. Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Rural Transport

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation at an early date to help deal with the problems of rural transport.

Mr. Carmichael: We are taking the views of both sides of the bus industry and the local authority associations.

Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how, after having failed to support proposals put forward from this side of the House to encourage more minibuses in rural areas and the giving of lifts in private cars, there was no mention of that important problem in the Gracious Speech, despite the brave words in the Labour Party's manifesto? Does he realise that these problems are being aggravated daily, especially with the escalating price of petrol?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman should realise that this is a more complicated problem than he is suggesting. I saw certain attractions in the Bill introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but when I looked at it closely I discovered many problems. In the last few weeks we have had several Adjournment debates, some of which were quite lengthy, on this subject. I think that hon. Members who took part in those debates realise the difficulty of the problem. We are aware of the problem and are working as hard as we can on it. However, it must not be thought that the matter can be solved by the waving of a wand. It is a very difficult problem.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that an improvement in rural transport services means the curtailment of expenditure on motorway programmes —not simply promises, but a definite fixed curtailment—so that people living in large areas of blight are able to resume normal living without that threat, which can last for several years?

Mr. Carmichael: I am aware of the problem of blight. I am also aware of the high cost of building motorways, and of not building motorways—because other problems arise when we do not build bypassess and improve roads in other ways. The matter is more complicated than merely taking money from the roads programme to help solve the rural transport problem.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if he does not take action urgently on this matter of rural transport, some rural areas in my constituency will become completely in-

accessible, as people cannot afford to pay the increased cost of petrol? Will he also, in concert with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, do something about the problems of school transport, which have been under consideration for a considerable period now?

Mr. Carmichael: I would refer the hon. Lady to the Adjournment debate on Friday last, when that very question was fully discussed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will pay close attention to what the hon. Lady said about school transport.

M6 (Welsh Border Link)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the earliest date at which he expects to announce the completion of dual carriageway connections between the Welsh border in the Chester area and the M6 motorway at the Warrington exit for traffic from the north and the Stoke exit for traffic from the south.

Mr. Carmichael: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 13th November about the completion of the M56 motorway between the M6 near Warrington and Lea-by-Backford near Chester; but I am urgently considering the possibility of dualling the 2½ miles of the A5117 between Lea-by-Backford and the Welsh border. Forecast traffic flows do not justify the improvement to dual carriageway standards of the A51/A52 route between the Welsh border and the M6 near Stoke-on-Trent.

Sir A. Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman remove the misconception widely held in Wales that his Department operates with a map from which all of Wales, except Glamorgan, has been erased? I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he prolongs dual carriageways beyond the Welsh border they will not fall over the edge. Indeed, they might even succeed in waking up the Secretary of State for Wales to building some roads on his side of the border.

Mr. Carmichael: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Wales, having been a transport Minister, is well aware of the problems. The forecast traffic flows do not justify dualling beyond the border. If the hon. Member would like to raise


this matter more fully with me, I should be only too pleased to reply to him personally.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a statement on the Government's review of policy towards Southern Africa, which is now complete. We believe it essential for Britain to make clear its firm stand against the policy of apartheid and racialism.
Following the Government's decision to reimpose the United Nations embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa, we have now completed an overhaul of the licensing arrangements for arms sales. This will ensure that our policies are fully in line with our international undertakings.
The Government have acted upon the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee's Report concerning wages and conditions in South Africa. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has commended the committee's guidelines on employment practices to the chairmen of British firms with interests in South Africa. To assist this, I am making a new appointment of a labour attaché to our embassy in Pretoria.
In matters of civil trade, and where international obligations do not conflict, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government that commercial trading relations with other countries should be based on considerations of their internal or external policies. So far as normal trade and investment are concerned, firms remain free to carry out existing or future contacts in South Africa. The usual range of export services, including trade missions and ECGD cover, will remain available as for markets of equal commercial standing.
The Government regard sporting contacts with South Africa, so long as selection on the basis of race or colour is maintained, as repugnant, and they will receive no official support or approval. The Government ask organisations and individuals to take serious note of this policy, although we shall, clearly, not

interfere with their right to decide these matters for themselves.
It is nearly 20 years since the Simons-town Agreement was signed, in circumstances very different from those of today, and some of the provisions of the agreement are no longer appropriate. We intend to hold discussions with the South African Government to bring the agreement to an end. We should be ready to use on a "customer" basis, as other countries do, the docking and other facilities at Simonstown as and when necessary.
The Government have considered the Advisory Opinion concerning Namibia which the International Court of Justice gave in 1971. This is a complicated matter, and I am, therefore, circulating a fuller statement of our position in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Government's conclusion is that the mandate can no longer be regarded as being in force, that South Africa's occupation of Namibia is unlawful, and that it should withdraw. I am informing both the South African Government and the United Nations of these conclusions.
There are certain elements of the court's Advisory Opinion which we do not accept. In particular, we cannot agree that the existing resolutions of the Security Council concerning Namibia are mandatory. This is a point of fundamental importance, with implications going beyond the Namibia question itself. Nevertheless in keeping with the spirit of these resolutions we have decided to give no further promotional support for trade with Namibia.
The Government look to South Africa to heed the United Nations calls on her to withdraw from this international territory, and we shall lend our support in the international community to help bring this about.
We have made a contribution of £10,000 to the United Nations Fund for Namibia, and we shall, subject to Parliamentary approval, contribute £20,000 to UNICEF Funds for humanitarian assistance, through liberation movements, to women and children refugees from Namibia. We also propose to make a contribution to the United Nations Research Institute for Namibia at Lusaka. We have made repeated representations to the South Africa Government concerning the plight of SWAPO leaders


and will develop contacts with representatives of SWAPO.
As regards Rhodesia, I set out in detail our policy when the House renewed the sanctions order on 8th November. The House will have noted that the situation is more fluid than for some time, and I shall be ready to take advantage of any developments.
As the House knows, I have planned a visit to Africa at the end of this month, and this will give me the opportunity of personal discussions with the African Heads of State most closely involved.
We seek a just and peaceful solution, which will require the support of the African people, and in this the African National Congress, ZANU and ZAPU have an important rôle to play. These bodies know that we are willing to enter into discussions with them as an essential part of discussions about Rhodesia's future.
Our aim throughout Southern Africa is to make a constructive contribution to peace, justice and racial equality, and we shall work in co-operation with other countries and organisations to that end.

Mr. Blaker: The Foreign Secretary has made an important statement which will require careful study, especially that part relating to Namibia. On South Africa, I will not press him further at the moment on Simonstown, since I understand that we are to have a debate before long which will cover that matter. But we welcome what he said about ordinary trade with South Africa, which carries further what he said in the debate on the Address about trade not being a badge of respectability. Would he agree that what he has just said means that the Government will welcome and encourage trade with South Africa?
As for Rhodesia, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Conservative Government consistently strove to get a settlement within the six principles, and nearly obtained one. In this new and fast-moving situation, will he accept my assurance that, if he sees a suitable opportunity for a sensible intervention to secure a settlement within the six principles, he will have the support of this side of the House? Since other countries now appear to be involved, would he make it clear to the House that,

constitutionally, responsibility still remains that of Britain?
On Namibia, the statement mentions the giving of help for humanitarian assistance through liberation movements. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be sure that the aid which is given is used for humanitarian purposes?

Mr. Callaghan: The normal practice will continue with trade with South Africa, namely that firms and companies in this country will no doubt take what action they think is right to secure business there.
I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the six principles and Rhodesia. We have been having discussions at various levels since August, especially with Zambia, who took the initiative in this matter as I reported to the House in the sanctions debate. Mr. Mwaanga, the Foreign Secretary, came to see me in Geneva when I was in the middle of the Cyprus talks. I welcome very much the initiative that Zambia has been taking and the opportunity of concerting our policies with her and other countries such as Botswana and Tanzania. Of course this is constitutionally Britain's responsibility and in the end the constitutional position will have to be resumed. But I welcome the efforts of any country in Africa to settle what is essentially an African problem.
On the question of liberation movements, the use of organisations such as UNICEF is the proper way in which to handle these funds for humanitarian assistance, and I have no doubt that they will be properly disposed of.

Mr. Bottomley: Bearing in mind that the ultimate responsibility for the transference of power to Rhodesia rests with the United Kingdom, has my right hon. Friend considered arranging a meeting between himself and Ian Smith?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I have thought about this, obviously, but in the first place, as I said in the sanctions debate, it seemed to me much better, if possible, to concert our policies with the Africa Governments concerned. If, now or later, or, indeed, when I am in Africa, Mr. Smith were to express a desire to see me, I should, of course, consider that seriously.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his statement and the approach that permeates it? Is he satisfied that sufficient advice on guidelines on labour relations is given to British firms setting up in South Africa? Second, in view of the fluidity of the situation—probably in South Africa, too, to some extent—will he make the strongest representations to the South African Government that a genuine peaceful settlement in Namibia is possible if they recognise SWAPO, as they should do?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for what he said about the general trend of the statement, which I believe sets our policy on realistic lines, consistent with opinion throughout the world, and on lines which will serve the best interests of peace in Southern Africa as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has issued the guidelines. We have had replies from over 250 companies so far. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would welcome questions and would be willing to give further details. The fact that I shall appoint a new labour attaché in Pretoria, who will obviously be in close touch on these matters, will be of assistance.
Dealing with Namibia, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cause of peace there, and of peace in Southern Africa, requires that the South Africans should recognise SWAPO at the earliest possible moment. Then, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—and I hope Mr. Vorster sees it in this way—there is probably the best prospect for years of securing a proper settlement and giving independence and self-determination to that country.

Mr. Dalyell: On behalf of those who have recently been on delegations to the Foreign Office on the question of Namibia, may I thank the Foreign Secretary? Are there not priorities of aid and trade and technical co-operation with Namibia if solutions are to be found to this problem?

Mr. Callaghan: There is a case for this. It presents certain difficulties. It is my desire to see that such assistance as we give should be in the form of preparing that country to become indepen-

dent and self-governing, to train those who will be needed and to ensure that the country has a viable economic future.

Mr. Amery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of the present fluid situation in Southern Africa no one would want to say anything that would make his task more difficult? May I follow the question put to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley)? Does he not think that his influence and ability to mediate or work for a peaceful settlement would be greatly increased if he extended his forthcoming African journey both to Salisbury and to Pretoria?

Mr. Callaghan: I dealt with this question three weeks or a month ago. I agree that the situation is moving rather fast, and I am glad of that. As for meeting Mr. Smith, our previous experience can be summed up by saying, "Twice bitten three times shy". I should want very carefully to consider whether I would be helping towards a solution. As for the possibility of visiting South Africa, when I have had talks with the African leaders and we have measured each other's approach to the problem, that may be the moment for taking a decision on that matter.

Mr. Russell Kerr: While in general terms I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement, may I press him on the question of the humanitarian aid being given to Namibia? Is he aware that £10,000 seems derisory in view of the known degree of deprivation in that territory? Will he think again, at least to the extent of moving the decimal point one place to the right?

Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says and will certainly give consideration to it. I have not personally been into these sums of money that are being given. I am bound to say to hon. Members that we are being squeezed pretty tight on our budgets this year by an iron-fisted Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I welcome the Secretary of State's move towards a possible visit to Pretoria? Three weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman was very much against that. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is vital that he should do this now, especially after what


he said about Namibia, especially in view of our uranium contract on which we very much depend for future power, and especially in view of the general placatory attitude now being taken by the South African Government towards Rhodesia's problems? Is it not vital that the visit to Pretoria should be made as soon as possible?

Mr. Callaghan: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion and I will certainly weigh it. I have no prejudices one way or the other, except for my intense prejudice against apartheid and racialism. Apart from that I will go anywhere and do anything if it will assist in reaching a settlement.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is genuine concern that citizens of Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa resident in this country are being subjected to harassment and intimidation by agents of the Bureau of State Security of South Africa? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy that no co-operation is to be given by the security forces of the United Kingdom to the South African Bureau of State Security and that residents of those countries living in this country are entitled to the protection of the British police against any such harassment if they seek help and advice from our police?

Mr. Callaghan: Speaking from one of my past experiences, I do not think it usual to discuss security matters in this House. In any case, this is a matter for the Home Secretary, if he wants to discuss it. Obviously any citizen resident here is entitled to the full protection of the law and of the police forces of this country if he is being harassed.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many millions of white and coloured people in South Africa and Rhodesia, quite apart from the Governments of those two countries, who are entirely reasonable folk and who are very worried about their present position and their future? Does he think that it would help the climate of opinion generally if he appeared to be boycotting both South Africa and Rhodesia? Is this not another argument for his thinking most carefully indeed before deciding not to visit these capitals?

Mr. Callaghan: I shall appear to be boycotting them only if Conservative Members suggest that I am. This is a case of deciding what are the right priorities. In the circumstances in which this visit was planned, the right priorities were to try to get a common policy, if such were possible, between the African neighbours of Rhodesia and ourselves. I will not go any further than that and I will not be intimidated into visiting anywhere by hon. Gentlemen if I do not think that it will serve the cause which I seek to serve.

Mr. Kinnock: The word "negotiate" fascinates me and many of my hon. Friends. Given that the negotiations involve giving and taking, can my right hon. Friend say what he expects to give and to take in negotiations with the South African Government? Will he from today undertake to suspend the use of United Kingdom facilities by South African military personnel, which are our obligations under the Simonstown Agreement? Will he take it as an absolute fundamental that in what he calls the fluidity of the Southern African situation, unless we wish to get washed away, all the blandishments which Mr. Vorster is currently purveying throughout South Africa should be completely dismissed and distrusted and should not be taken as being an accurate guide to the way in which South Africa is going? Can my right hon. Friend further tell us, in the event of British firms not responding to the Government direction about the treatment of South African labour, what the Government will do to enforce those conditions?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend must have misheard me. I do not think I used the word "negotiate" throughout the whole of my statement. As for the position of British firms, I think my hon. Friend had better table a Question to the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Gow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on the Conservative side of the House hope that sportsmen in this country will disregard the advice given by the Government? Is he aware that those of us who hold that view are no less opposed than is the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. William Hamilton: Of course you are.

Mr. Gow: —to apartheid but that we believe that the best way of combating it is to multiply and not to restrict contacts?

Mr. Callaghan: The experience of the last year or two does not bear out the hon. Gentleman's view.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to accept the Advisery Opinion of the International Court to declare the occupation of Namibia illegal will be extremely welcome? Can he spell out a little more clearly the reservations about the acceptance of the Security Council's resolution which derives directly from the International Court's Advisory Opinion? Can he also make it clear that Her Majesty's Government would not be satisfied by the creation of Bantustans?

Mr. Callaghan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT dealing with our reservations. If he studies that he will see what are the difficulties about a total acceptance of this Advisory Opinion. The future of Namibia will best be determined, no doubt with the assistance of the United Nations, by negotiations between the SWAPO leaders and the South African Government. That would be the best way. We shall be willing to give any assistance we can.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Should we not welcome everything that can be done to bring labour relations in British firms in South Africa up to the level of the best South African firms? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many British firms have fallen well below the level of South African firms? When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of his proper detestation of racialism, may we be sure that this applies to both sides of the Zambesi, and similarily his principle of racial equality, whatever precisely that means?

Mr. Callaghan: I know that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be helpful on these, as on all other matters. I am never backward, and I hope none of my hon. Friends is, in taking each case and applying to it the principles by which we stand. I seem to remember that I reacted rather swiftly in the case of another

territory in the Continent of Africa about three weeks or a month ago.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if there is to be a priority in his journey to Africa, and if Rhodesia is to be a priority, a visit to the Government of South Africa may be very helpful in getting a settlement? Whether we like it or not, the Government of South Africa is an African government included in the negotiations.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the House wants to get rid of me. I certainly take very careful note of the suggestions for the places that I should visit. I will certainly reach a conclusion on that matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. We must move on. We have a heavy programme ahead of us.

Following is the further statement—

It will be recalled that the Security Council of the United Nations sought the advice of the International Court on the question "what are the legal consequences for states of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276". The principal conclusions reached by the Court in its advisory opinion of 23 June 1971 were—

(1) by 13 votes to 2. that, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the territory;

(2) by 11 votes to 4. that States Members of the United Nations are under obligation to recognise the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia and to refrain from any acts and in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration.

2. In October 1971 the Government of the day informed Parliament and the Security Council that they did not accept these conclusions.

3. In its opinion the Court examined the legality of Resolution 2145 of 1966 by which the General Assembly purported to terminate the mandate. One of the underlying questions, to which the Court gave an affirmative answer, was whether the General Assembly had the competence to make such an executive decision. The Charter confers upon the General Assembly powers which, with certain exceptions of very limited scope, are recommendatory only, and in our opinion the arguments in support of the legal effectiveness of


the Resolution are not convincing. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the Court's reasoning on Resolution 2145 and its conclusion that that Resolution operated of itself to terminate the mandate.

4. However, South Africa has itself repudiated the mandate and the obligations which it accepted by virtue of the mandate. The United Nations by resolutions commanding very wide support both in the Assembly and in the Security Council has adopted the position that, owing to fundamental breaches of its obligations on the part of the Mandatory, the mandate is no longer in force. In view of South Africa's conduct, by which she has divested herself of any entitlement under the mandate, and of the recognition thereof and response thereto by the United Nations and the international community, the mandate cannot be regarded as still alive and operative; and with the termination of the mandate South Africa's rights to administer the territory have lapsed. Nevertheless the international status of the Territory still continues, since no lawful basis exists or has ever existed upon which South Africa can or could have unilaterally altered that status.

5. The General Assembly having called the attention of the Security Council to Resolution 2145, the Council adopted Resolutions in 1969 and 1970 of which the essential one was 276 of 1970. This Resolution reaffirmed Resolution 2145, declared the presence of South African authorities in Namibia and all acts taken by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning the Territory after termination of the mandate to be illegal, and called upon all States to refrain from any dealings with the Government of South Africa inconsistent with this declaration. There was no prior finding under Article 39 of the Charter to found a mandatory resolution within Chapter VII; indeed proposals for such a finding were not accepted. Nevertheless the opinion of the Court was that Resolution 276 imposed obligations upon member States. The Government believe that the course of events in the Security Council and the consultation amongst its members do not support the conclusions of fact asserted in the Court's opinion. And as a matter of law they remain of the view that the Security Council cannot take decisions generally binding on member States unless there has been a determination under Article 39 of the existence of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression. Consequently they are unable to accept this part of the advisory opinion.

6. However, for the reasons explained above, the Government take the view that South Africa is in occupation without title of a

territory which has international status. This occupation is unlawful and South Africa should withdraw. Meanwhile South Africa remains the de facto adminstering authority. However, in the circumstances there is an obligation on States not to recognise any right of South Africa to continue to administer the territory. But there is no obligation, in the absence of appropriate decisions under Chapter VII of the Charter, to take measures which are in nature of sanctions. It follows that we do not accept an obligation to take active measures of pressure to limit or stop commercial or industrial relations of our nationals with the South African administration of Namibia.

EARLY-DAY MOTION

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to page 1633 of the Order Paper, a paper of which my constituents in Great Yarmouth are avid readers. Therefore, when they see page 1633 this morning and read the early-day motion on the problems of small shopkeepers, they will have been somewhat surprised to see that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has, without his knowledge, been transferred, or has crossed the Floor, to take up a very important position in the Government of the day, for the motion appears in the name of "Mr. Attorney Fell".
May I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not been approached at all by the Prime Minister and that I have not approached him. May I ask you whether you could get this matter put right by altering the wording to read "Mr. Attorney Silkin", or "Mr. Anthony Fell"? The former, of course, would be preferable to the shopkeepers of Great Britain because they could then expect great things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that the necessary correction will be made. I will just add that the surprise of the hon. Member's constituents is nothing compared to the surprise of the House.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (WORSHIP AND DOCTRINE) MEASURE

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have it in command by Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the measure at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the measure.

Mr. Terry Walker: This is the most important Church measure that has been presented to Parliament for a good many years. It passed the Church's General Synod in February of this year. The general purpose of the measure is to give the Church of England, through the General Synod, permanent powers to authorise forms of service which fully protect the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and also to prescribe the forms by which bishops, clergy and lay officers are required to assent to the doctrine of the Church.
There are, of course, many theological reasons for this measure. The Church should have the right to order its own worship. The Archbishop of Canterbury, when speaking in another place on 14th November, said:
Ought a Christian Church, through its own chief pastors, ministers and laity, to have the ordering of its own forms of worship? I do not believe that there is a single Church in Christendom which would not answer, 'Yes, a Christian Church ought to have the ordering of its own forms of worship'. Certainly the Church of Scotland, established as it is, would say this. Certainly every province of the world-wide Anglican Communion would say this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, I4th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 868–9.]
The Church of England discovered in its long negotiations with the Methodist Church that control by Parliament of

worship was something that would have to be done away with before there could be complete and final unity. Now that the Church of England is entering fresh negotiations on a multilateral basis with all the main Churches, including the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Churches, this question of worship is bound to recur.
Freedom to order its own worship is not incompatible with the continuance of establishment, as the experience of the Church of Scotland shows. Indeed, control of worship of the Church of England by Parliament is almost an historical accident. In 1906 the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline reported that the law of public worship was too narrowly drawn, even in those days, for the needs of the time, and called for liturgical reform.
It is the experience of all parts of the Christian Church in these days that at least for some people there is a need for methods of worship in modern language. Some people regret that there should ever have been a desire to use modern forms in preference to the Prayer Book of 1662 and the Authorised Version, but many people share the view, and our experience, that there is a proven need for modern language services, especially in new communities such as new housing areas, universities and colleges. No one, if he were wise, would do away with the old forms of worship. They must be cherished. But there must be new forms included, for it is a matter of how best we are able to make an impact on ordinary folk. In new housing areas, with the rolling miles of bricks and mortar, it has been proven that the new forms of service are very well received and have had an impact.
Parliament has encouraged the Church of England to think that it does not feel itself to be the appropriate body in these days to settle matters of doctrine, forms of service, what clergymen wear, etc. One of the measures in which Parliament encouraged this view was the Prayer Book (Alternative and other Services) Measure 1965, which gave the Church of England temporary powers to experiment with forms of service alternative to those in the Prayer Book of 1662. Over the last eight years there have been vigorous experiments. There has been Series 1, Series 2 and Series 3. But the Church


is now coming to the end of this experimental phase and to a period of liturgical stability. There will not be Series 4, 5 or 6. Instead, the Church of England will over the next 10 to 15 years have three main components in its public worship.
First, there will be the services of the 1662 Prayer Book, known and loved by many of us from our childhood. We also have the new services in traditional language—in other words, Series 2—and there will also be the range of new services for modern language known as Series 3.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) said there would not be Series 4, 5 and 6. Since he has been so specific, what guarantee can he give on that score?

Hon. Members: He cannot.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Member will allow me, I shall come to this point as I progress.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Gentleman cannot give that guarantee.

Mr. Walker: Possibly in the next 10 years or so, since language and understandings change, someone will want to draw up a Series 4, but this is, of course——

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) the interdiction on reading speeches in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The House normally shows a great deal of understanding. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) is taking a major part in our discussions for the first time.

Mr. Walker: Such is the importance of this measure that I want hon. Members to be absolutely clear about what is being said, and in order that they may do that I am reading most of my speech.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Kingswood has admitted that he is reading his speech, and you

will be aware that it is contrary to the Standing Orders of the House that he should do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that reading speeches is out of order. He also knows that the House is not a legalistic chamber, and that there is understanding here. I understood, and no doubt the hon. Member for Kingswood will tell me, that he is merely making copious use of his notes.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be appropriate to regard the Second Church Commissioner as being in this debate in the same position as a Member of the Government at the Dispatch Box and entitled thereby to the same conventions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walker: I, too, am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I say that Series 2 has enabled us in the Church of England to achieve something of a break through between those who were formerly called high Church and those who were formerly called low Church. We have found that to be one of the strengths of Series 2. I believe it has also brought greater understanding between those who value the archaic and mysterious part of our worship under the 1662 Prayer Book and those who feel the pressure of more conventional ways of worship and more contemporary ways in the sense of the new services that are proposed.
The proposals now before us in the measure originate in the work of the commission appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on which hon. Members have sat and have played their part. Their recommendations were that the Church should have permanent powers to order its worship. The Church has to plan in the situation in which these differing forms of services are available for their development, side by side, on a long-term basis. Most important, we need satisfactory agreements and arrangements for choosing which of the various services are to be used in each particular parish.
I come therefore to the recommendations of the measure itself and to its


salient points. Clause 1(1) gives the General Synod permanent power to authorise alternative services, but ensures that the Prayer Book of 1662 is to remain available. Perhaps I could describe it as being a permanent option. If the Synod should ever wish to alter this so that the 1662 book, or some services in it, were to be abolished, the Church would have to come to Parliament with another measure and thus, the Book of Common Prayer is given a secure place in the future of our worship.
Clause 1(3) settles the question of who is to choose which service is to be used. The decision has to be made by the parish priest and the parochial church council jointly. If they disagree, the parochial church council will be able to insist upon use of the 1662 services or upon the use of some authorised alternative which will have been in use in the parish regularly for at least two of the last four years. That means that if a parish has recently switched from the Series 2 Holy Communion service to the Series 3 service the parochial church council could choose either to come back to the service of 1662 or to the Series 2 service.

Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I apologise for not having previously congratulated him on the part he is taking in the debate. Will he explain something to me? I am genuinely trying to be helpful. I am concerned about the future of the Book of Common Prayer. I am worried that the situation might arise in which an incumbent with a strong personality and determination persuaded a majority, but only just a majority, of his parochial church council that the Common Prayer Book should not be used in future services in his church. I am concerned that this might well be against the wishes of a substantial minority of the PCC and, indeed, perhaps a majority of the "men in the pew", if I may use that term. What further safeguard is there for the average member of the congregation of that incumbent's church who has not fully appreciated what is going on?

Mr. Walker: I hope that I may reassure the hon. Member on this point when I reach it. I shall certainly go into it in depth. I believe that the deci-

sion making under this measure is being taken to as near the grass roots as is humanly possible. Anyone who does not like the form of service being used in his parish church will have the obvious remedy of going to the annual general meeting and getting himself elected to the parochial church council, there to try to persuade his colleagues to come round to his point of view. The proposals in this measure involve the full participation of the laity in the decision about the future of worship. It is a strong point of the measure that the power is in the hands of the laity of the parochial church council.
In the past it was the prerogative of the incumbent, and if he insisted there was little one could do. There are occasions within my recollection when the bishop has been involved in these matters. But now the measure makes it clear that the parochial church council can insist on the parish's reverting to the form of service used in the past two years of the previous form or reverting to the service of 1662.

Mr. John Loveridge: Is there not a difficulty about transferring power from this House to the General Synod, even though the transference of powers is limited in the measures proposed? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is an adequate electoral base to represent the majority of Church members, who are not usually able to be present at the annual parochial meetings at which local elections take place, and which form the base for the next stage of elections on up to the General Synod? We would not accept that as a democratic basis for election to this House. Should we transfer powers away from here in those circumstances?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) and to the House that such points can be made in the debate, and that it will be much wiser if we allow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) to complete his speech.

Mr. Walker: I shall try to meet the needs of the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) when I come to the relevant part of my speech.
I turn to Clause 2, which is one of the main planks of the measure. Clergymen and some authorised lay ministers must


take an oath or make a declaration of assent to the doctrine and formalities of the Church of England before they can be appointed to certain offices or to exercise functions such as taking services. At present it is for Parliament to settle the forms of these declarations. The measure transfers that task to the General Synod. The Synod has shown the Ecclesiastical Committee, by submitting to it the draft canon that it proposes to make, what use it will make of the power. Briefly, the aim is that when in future a clergyman assents to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the other formularies, he will do so in terms which place them in their historical context and in relation to the general body of doctrine of the Church of England.
One of the fears that have often been expressed about the new services is that they will in some way change the doctrine of the Church of England. I think that everyone would agree that the way a church worships is a guide to what it believes. Clause 4(1) makes it clear that any new services must be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential. The doctrine of the Church is given statutory definition in Clause 5.
Other critics of the measure object because it will be for the General Synod to decide whether there has been a departure from the traditional doctrine in any particular case. They would prefer to see the decision handed over to a doctrine panel or the courts. What the measure proposes is in practice a much more difficult hurdle than either of those. No service can be introduced into the Synod without the approval of the House of Bishops in the first instance. After it has gone through full scrutiny in full Synod, in an upstairs committee and again in full Synod, it returns to the bishops before it is given final approval. At that stage it is open to the Convocation or the House of Laity to call for the matter to be referred to them for separate discussions. The matter cannot proceed further unless all four Houses of Convocation, plus the House of Laity separately, agree that it should.
Moreover, when the matter is presented for final approval in the General Synod there must be a majority of two-thirds of those present and voting in the

House of Synod in favour of it. This is a stiff hurdle, and one which prevents any rash action by the Synod. It also means that no alternative service is authorised unless there is a substantial majority in favour of it. Therefore, as I hope I have proved, there are many safeguards written into the measure.
I come to the point about the position of the Synod raised by the hon. Member for Upminster. Parliament created the Church Assembly, and subsequently allowed the delegated powers that it gave to the Assembly to be handed on to the General Synod. The Synod is not an interested party, as some critics of the measure have called it. It is the constitutional machinery that Parliament has called into being to legislate for the Church of England. It is right that the Synod should act deliberately and responsibly in these matters. The fact that special majorities are required by its constitution and by this new measure helps to ensure that there will be no snap decisions or narrow-margin votes.
Behind the General Synod is a process of consultation reaching through to the diocesan synods in the deaneries and parishes the length and breadth of the land. What Act of Parliament would be discussed, as the measure has been discussed, in 43 regional councils? That is what the diocesan synods are. Not every deanery and not every parochial church council will have discussed the measure, but mine and those with which I have contact have done so. There may be hon. Members who can mention one where such discussion has not taken place, but at least there has been the opportunity to discuss the measure. This process has taken four years almost to the day, since the Church and State Report, on which the measure is based, was presented.
The Synod is criticised because the Honse of Laity is elected by a constituency of only 36,000. But that electorate is twice as large as that which elected the Church Assembly, its predecessor, and it is made up of lay people who are directly elected by the parishes. The Church could go closer to the grass roots in its electoral process only if it could afford costs approaching those of a parliamentary General Election, which clearly it cannot. Within the constitutional


framework of the General Synod, elections to it are based upon proportional representation, with multi-member constituencies, to ensure that in a comprehensive Church there is representation of the widest possible range of views.

Mr. Loveridge: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving that limited reassurance. Does he not feel that, whatever is decided here today, it would be wise to look ahead to a wider electoral base to go with the broader powers?

Mr. Walker: One would like to be able to consult more people, but in view of the shortage of money, and the money that would be wasted in running something like a parliamentary General Election to canvass these views, that is out of the question. I am sure that such a procedure could not be countenanced in the present economic climate.
This measure is brought before the House in the light of that background. If the House of Commons rejected this measure, which was given final approval by the General Synod by 340 votes to 10, it would, in effect, be calling into question a system of self-government for the Church, which Parliament had itself largely created. It would be rejecting——

Mr. Alan Clark: I am mindful of the caution you delivered earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but could the hon. Gentleman just say, from the figures he quoted, how many abstentions there were from the voting?

Mr. Walker: I am not able to find that information for the hon. Gentleman. It was not recorded. The voting 340 votes to 10, was overwhelming. Another hon. Member was fulfilling my present duties at the time.
As I was saying, the rejection of this measure would call into question this system of self-government which the Church has had and which was largely created by Parliament. It would be rejecting the process of consultation which has been in operation for the last four years.
We are not today discussing a measure for disestablishing the Church of England. It is not a step in separating the Church of England from the Crown. When

Parliament gave the Church Assembly delegated legislative powers it did so to enable the Church to update itself and to legislate on matters for which Parliament had no time or perhaps no inclination. In 1919 Parliament made it possible for the partnership of Church and State, which we call the establishment, to continue to the mutual benefit of both sides. What is proposed today is the logical development of that process. It is as necessary as the step that was taken in 1919 if the partnership is to continue. If the House failed to endorse this measure it would not be defending the establishment of the Church of England, but would be triggering off the process of disestablishment, because it would have dealt a mortal blow to the mutual confidence of Church and State upon which the relationship of establishment depends.
Hardly anyone wants disestablishment. The Church does not want it, nor do those who have written to the Commissioners. This measure is a useful step designed to make possible the continuance of the partnership of Church and State which for so many centuries has been a distinguishing feature of our national life. For many centuries the Church has played its part during great ceremonial occasions and in connection with great issues as well as in the daily lives of ordinary folk.
Here is a transfer of responsibilities from Parliament to the General Synod. That is accepted. But it is also a transfer from the centre to the circumference, since the parishes will, within the limits set by the services authorised by the Synod, choose what form of service they want to use. Can we not trust them to choose wisely for themselves and for those who have elected them to these offices?
This measure offers a right balance between the role of the Church and the role of the State in a continuing partnership. Its rejection would be very damaging. It would be damaging to the leadership of the Church of England and the rest of the Anglican community. It would be damaging to the cause of Church unity, for which many of us have worked over many years in the hope of a reconciliation with the Free Churches and with the United Church.
Nowhere do we know this story better than in the Kingswood constituency, where the overwhelming majority of


churchgoers are Methodists. The rôle of the Church has been to join with them, through the United Council of Churches, on the great occasions of the Church at Easter and Christmas. Within the Church of England there is a spirit abroad of vitality and renewal. The rejection of this measure would deeply discourage many of us who want to see the Church more able to give the kind of leadership on all sorts of issues that it should give.
This measure will stimulate the united forces of Christianity in this country, for which many of us have been working for a very long time.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: We should all like to thank the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) for moving the motion in the way he has, and I should like to congratulate him on the office he holds.
I was relieved that, for the sake of greater accuracy, he made copious use of notes. I intend with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), also to make fairly copious use of them.
The ground we are treading this afternoon was comprehensively covered in another place three weeks ago. It might be thought that there is very little left to add, but I do not think that is likely to prevent a number of us, including myself, from making our own additions and claiming that those additions are essential to the debate. I hope my own additions will be reasonably short.
I have no intention of delving into the relevance of the great controversy over the 1928 Prayer Book, nor to discuss the new forms of worship, particularly of Series 2 or Series 3, although both the old controversy and the new forms of worship interest me very much. But I do not think that either of them stand at the centre of our debate this afternoon. As I understand it, we are riot discussing how the Church should worship or what is its doctrine. We are discussing the kind of authority which should order that worship and define that doctrine.
I know of the doubts which are widely expressed about the claims of the General Synod to exercise that authority. I share some of them myself.
The Synod is said to be unrepresentative because the House of Laity is elected by a tiny proportion of the laymen on the parish electoral rolls. Many of us have found that our constituents most concerned with these matters tend to appeal to us rather than to their representatives on the General Synod. If I walked the streets of Bridlington and asked the first one hundred Anglicans. I met, "Who represents you in the House of Laity?", I should probably receive few more coherent replies from them than I could give them in return. This suggests to me that the alleged imperfect representation is less the fault of the present system of elections to the General Synod than of the small amount of active interest most of us take in these matters. As one noble Lord said in the recent debate,
… very few of us have the Church Times propped against the marmalade at breakfast." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 881.]
I have no personal experience of synodical government. I hope that it has made, and is making, great strides over the old machinery of the Church Assembly. I remember my own feelings of pride and self-satisfaction when as a young man I was elected to the Church Assembly, and my subsequent utter deflation when my father said, "If I were you, I would not be too proud about that. They have only put you on to keep someone else off."
To this kind of scepticism about the representative nature of the Church's governing body can be added a widely held suspicion that the Synod, if it were given full authority over the Church's worship, would be more interested than Parliament would ever be in change for the sake of change.
Even if, as I have, we have become accustomed to a number of the new forms of worship and are completely happy with them, I think that a great many of us are disturbed by the prospect of yet further changes in our worship—what I think Mr. C. S. Lewis described as the "liturgical fidget". I discern this anxiety on the benches behind me today.
We cannot have any guarantee against proposals being made of Series 4, 5 and 6, but I was very much assured by the words of the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in the recent debate and the prospect which he held out that the Church of England


… is heading for a period of relative calm". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th November 1974;Vol 354, c. 896.]
Nor do I think that any guarantee can be given that each individual member of the Church of England will get exactly what he or she wants. I do not think that he or she gets that now. But this measure carries some guarantee that, collectively, parishes will be able to get what they want in the way of forms of worship. In any event, when I consider the future relationship of Church and Parliament, any doubts that I have on these scores are but dust in the balance compared with the greater incongruity of continuing to involve a large number of hon. Members in this House and no doubt certain noble Lords in another place in decisions on matters of worship in which they happen to have no belief and probably very little interest.
If, for some strange reason in those circumstances, Parliament were still determined to take those decisions itself and to withhold authority from the General Synod by rejecting this measure, I believe that there are a great many churchmen, as the hon. Member for Kingswood hinted, who would feel that their only honourable course was to ask for disestablishment. I believe that disestablishment would have been a great loss in the 1920s, and that it would still be a great loss in the 1970s, to both Church and State.
Both looking back and looking forward, I am enormously encouraged by the decisive change in the climate of opinion about the need for Christian unity. I was greatly disappointed by the failure, for the time being, of the discussions between the Methodists and the Anglicans. But I do not think that that failure and the inability to make the kind of progress in other directions that we should like can frustrate indefinitely the urge towards greater unity in a world where the historical divisions of Christianity make ever-diminishing sense.
In this context more than in any other, the authority of the Church to order its own worship and doctrine will be of supreme importance. Therefore, it is for this reason, above all others, that I hope that Parliament, without a Division,

will agree to present the measure for the Royal Assent.

4.35 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): On a measure of this importance, I am sure that it is the wish of the House that I should say a word from the Government Front Bench about it. Before doing so, however, let me add my congratulations to those of the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) not only on becoming the Second Church Commissioner but also on his excellent speech today.
The measure now before the House fulfils the recommendations of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Church and State that the Church should have freedom to determine its own doctrine and order its own worship. I do not propose to comment on the content of the measure in detail, but I should like to draw attention to three aspects of it.
First, the broad purpose of the measure is to give the Synod power, subject to certain safeguards, to introduce new forms of service alternative to those in the Book of Common Prayer, and to determine doctrine, without coming to this House for approval. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be interested to know that Clause 4 is about the safeguarding of doctrine. While it does that, it also guarantees the identity of the Church by preserving for ever, or until Parliament ordains otherwise—and Parliament can always do that—the forms of service contained in the Book of Common Prayer for use in the Church and the position of that book as one of the formularies—that is to say, the standards of doctrine—of the Church. So, although some hon. Members may feel that there is a loss on the one hand, there is a clear gain on the other.
Secondly, I should say a word about Clause 6. I am sure that it is puzzling a great many hon. Members to know how it is that an order of this kind can repeal a number of Acts of Parliament, in particular the Act of Uniformity. The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 specifically provides that measures may repeal Acts. But the list of proposed repeals in this measure is of unusual interest.
All hon. Members who went to church as children will remember sitting down in the bottom of a pew, looking at the Prayer Book, thumbing through the early pages, looking at the prohibited degrees, calculating when Easter would come in the year 2050, and looking at the small print in the Act of Uniformity. This measure would repeal the whole of the Act of Uniformity except Sections 10 and 15.
A great many hon. Members feel—and I understand their feelings—that this, in effect, removes the corner stone of the Church. But these provisions of the Act really do no more than provide a basis for the Book of Common Prayer, and they could hardly survive if the Synod's proposals are to prevail. For much the same reason, it is necessary to enact that Section 3 of the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 should not apply to any rule of ecclesiastical law relating to any matter for which provision may be made by Canon in pursuance of this measure. This again is a consequential of the earlier proposals.
I mention a third point, because I understand that this has been a matter of controversy in the Synod. The measure now before us lays it down that decisions as to the forms of service used in a particular church are to be made jointly by the incumbent and the parochial church council, and it provides certain safeguards for the use of the Book of Common Prayer in the event of their disagreement. As hon. Members will have heard, the measure has been approved by overwhelming majorities in each House of the Synod.
In one sense this measure undoubtedly represents an important change in the character of the relationship between Church and State in England. It gives the Church for the first time since the Reformation full authority to determine its doctrine and to order its worship. In another sense, however, the measure represents the logical development of earlier processes which have been undertaken with the co-operation of the State. First, there has been a series of Measures which have given the Church greater freedom to order its own affairs through its own representative bodies. Those measures include the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and the

Synodical Government Measure 1969. Second, the Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure 1965 gave the Church power to introduce, on an experimental basis and for a limited period, forms of service alternative, or in some cases supplementary, to those in the Book of Common Prayer. It is part of a logical process which has gone on for some time.
This measure deals with the worship and doctrine of the Church of England. It has been most carefully considered by the representative body of the Church and has the support of the overwhelming majorities in each House of the Synod. I do not think it can be said that there is anything in the measure which raises constitutional issues or which calls for modification or rejection by the House. The measure does not in any way sever the long relationship between Church and State in England but inaugurates a somewhat different relationship between them in these matters. The identity of the Church is guaranteed by the continuing role in doctrine and, whenever desired in use, of the Book of Common Prayer, which means so much to so many people.
The Prayer Book (Alternative Services) Measure was passed by Parliament in 1965 without dissent. That in itself, it seems, is an indication that most people nowadays would accept that it is for the Church itself to take the initiative in ordering its forms of worship and determining its doctrine. If so, there is no apparent reason for Parliament, still less the Government, objecting to this Measure.
Finally, I say hesitantly—as a member of the Church myself—that in ending the role of Parliament in this matter we are placing a new responsibility on the Church to ensure that the feelings and the wishes of ordinary churchgoers are reflected in the decisions of the Synod —namely, decisions concerning worship and doctrine. If Parliament is to withdraw its surveillance and custodianship over the established Church's worship and doctrine, the eminent and articulate theologians in the Synod must listen to the rather quieter voice of the majority in the Church. I know that this responsibility is one to which the Church attaches great importance. I am sure that Parliament can safely leave this matter in the hands of the Church.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I speak as an elected member of the General Synod of the Church of England. As such, I must tell the House —and I hope, at the same time reassure it—of the tremendous amount of time, deliberation and consultation which took place within the Church before the measure was finally approved. Before I say anything else, I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on his appointment and on his speech today.
This measure is based on the report of the Commission on Church and State which was presided over by Dr. Owen Chadwick, Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge. The measure was considered at numerous stages. The General Synod's procedure demanded first a debate on the principles, then a revision stage and then a further session to study the findings of the Revision Committee. There was then another debate. The Church of England does nothing in haste.
This measure was also referred to the dioceses for them to consider in their diocesan synods. There are 43 diocesan synods. The result was that 42 of the synods approved the measure and one synod wanted it to go further. When the measure was finally before the General Synod for approval 340 members voted in favour of it and there were about 10 against.
I now turn to the question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) when he referred to abstentions. In my experience in the General Synod there are usually about 400 members present for most of the sessions. That would mean that there were about 50 or 60 abstentions on this measure. It must be clear to the House that the wish of the Church in this matter could hardly be more clearly expressed.
The suggestion has been made in some quarters that the General Synod and the 43 diocesan synods are not representative of the man in the Clapham Church pew— in other words, the ordinary worshipper. The House will allow me to draw on my own experience in dealing with that point. I was warden of my local church for many years. When synodical government

was introduced I and one other person from our parochial church council were elected to represent our church on the local deanery synod. Four people, of whom I was one, were in turn chosen from among the members of the deanery synod to represent our deanery at the diocesan synod. The election to the General Synod was for eight members from the diocesan synod to be elected by the members of the deanery synods— namely, the lowest level. That produced the figure which has been already mentioned of 36,000. They are responsible for electing the members of the General Synod.
It must be appreciated that those people are drawn from every parish in the land. In the case of the people on my own PCC and in my own congregation, there were two people among them who could take soundings and express comments and opinions about the candidates coming up for election.
It has been suggested as a further last resort by those who would seek to fly in the face of the voting figures that it is easier for a constituent to raise a matter of doctrine which worries him with his Member rather than with one of his General Synod members whom he does not know. That is advanced as an argument for Parliament keeping control of Church doctrine.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My hon. Friend speaks of 36,000 people who took part in the election process of the General Synod. What about the 36 million English men and women who acknowledge themselves to be members of the Church of England?

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention. I did not know whether he would oblige me by saying that. What we must consider are not simply the people who enter C of E on their forms but the people in the churches. We shall only get more people involved in our religion if we can relate to them in language that they can understand.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall probably with the greatest reluctance find myself in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). However, it is an outrageous statement to say


that the Church should not consider the 36 million. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw that statement.

Mr. Pattie: I thought that I had made it clear in answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that it was precisely because I wished to consider the requirements of the 36 million that I did not want to see them coming into church and experiencing an archaic and totally unmeaning form of words. It is for the initiated a beautiful service but it means nothing to the uninitiated.
Perhaps I shall now be allowed to resume my text. Anyone who is involved enough in Church matters to wish to raise a matter of doctrine with his Member of Parliament will know that every diocese in the country is run on an administrative basis from a diocesan office. He will know that he will be able to find the telephone number of the office. He will know that a telephone call will produce a list of the members of the General Synod. I have found that those who wish to make known their views to me have had no difficulty in discovering my telephone number or where I live. To suggest that the easiest way is for people to get in touch with their Member of Parliament— in some instances their MPs will not be well versed in matters of this sort—rather than a member of the General Synod does not stand up.
Ever since the Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure 1965 the Church has had the power to sanction forms of service alternative to the 1662 Prayer Book for set periods. There has been a lot of discussion about new forms of service, and new services have been introduced. For the Communion Service I am a Series 2 man. I find Series 3 a little hard to take in certain respects. For example, I prefer to say "Lead us not into temptation "rather than" Bring us not to the time of trial".
Although we have had our differences of opinion over certain forms, I know that the ecumenical movement within our own Church has been much assisted by the drawing together through the use of common language. This has facilitated co-operation between the main two wings of the Church of England. We have also assisted a large number of people to

join in our services without experiencing that degree of immediate alienation that so often people find when they hear some rather remote language being used—remote in the sense that it may be beautiful but it does not relate to language which they can understand. This has been a great help in bringing in lots of new people to the Church. The Church's mission is to the uninitiated, and the need is urgent.
During these past nine years I cannot believe that Parliament has felt itself to be genuinely competent to pass judgment on various proposed Church measures. The attitude must surely have been, "If this is what the Church wants and its normal slow procedures have been followed, it shall have it." I seriously question the competence of Parliament on many occasions to sit in judgment on Church of England measures when I estimate that a maximum of only about 20 per cent. of hon. Members are what I consider to be active, committed Christians. These are matters of deep faith and theological significance, quite unlike defence cuts, motorways, pensions and so on.
The main criticism of this measure is that it would jeopardise the use of the 1662 Prayer Book. Not to mince words, that criticism is a travesty of the truth. The future safeguards for the use of the Prayer Book are stronger than they are under the existing measure. They have been progressively strengthened at every stage of consideration. The Book of Common Prayer is re-affirmed in the measure as one of the Church's standards of doctrine. The Prayer Book remains a legal alternative until a further measure, as the Lord President said, requiring an affirmative resolution of both Houses, has caused it to cease to be so.
If any parish wants to use the Prayer Book and there is a dispute in the parish, the parish must return to the pattern of services that obtained within two of the four previous years, or the congregation can insist on a return to the Prayer Book of 1662. This is a great improvement on the present privileged position of the parish priest. I hope, therefore, that the House will be very clear that the position of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 will be more secure if the measure is passed.

Sir John Eden: On the basis of my hon. Friend's experience, can he say whether there is now apparent, or likely to become so, a movement to bring forward a measure of the kind which he described, and to which the Lord President referred, which would end the special position of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer?

Mr. Pattie: The short answer to that question, in the tradition of the parliamentary Question, must be "No, Sir." One is very reassured to learn from the remarks made by the Bishop of Durham in the debate in the other place that there is no sign at all of any Series 4, 5 or 6, and that in his belief, and the belief of many others qualified to speak on these matters, the Church of England is now entering a period of liturgical calm.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend mentioned the 1965 measure. Perhaps I should have intervened at that point. What I do not quite understand is this. If in the circumstances he has just been describing the Church has until 1980 to confirm whether it wishes to go on to a further series, why should it find it necessary to bring forward this measure when given another three or four years the Church as a whole might be able to take a different view on it?

Mr. Pattie: The Church has until 1980 with this measure simply because these measures, under the old procedures, are on a fixed time scale. What the Church is asking for now is to be able to make these changes in the future to its doctrine but that there should be no set limited period.
I do not accept for a moment that approval of this measure is a step towards disestablishment; rather, it is a realistic adjustment to the existing harmonious working relationship. There need not be any fears that the Synod will use these powers to undermine doctrine. I shall not bore the House by describing the complex procedures for evaluating every measure which have to be undertaken, which are also very slow, but they will ensure that nothing slips by.
The new services of recent years have not only increased the relevance of our services without losing reverence but have assisted in producing a greater sense of

maturity and involvement by more people in the running of their Church.
This measure passed through the other place on the 70th birthday of the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury, who was such an inspiration to us all. How nice it would be it we could mark this day, which has seen the confirmation of the election of the new Archbishop of Canterbury at St. Paul's Cathedral, by giving our wholehearted approval to the measure.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Frank R. White: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) is urging the House to support the measure. My hon. Friend made a detailed and factual presentation which covered all aspects of the measure. Its content and the obviously sincere manner of delivery should command respect and support. I cannot add constructively or detract destructively from the comments made by my hon. Friend, but I should like to cover one or two points which particularly concern my constituency.
Following the debate in the House of Lords recently, I wrote to all the Anglican clergy in my constituency requesting their guidance and views on this matter. Twenty churches were contacted. I received only one critical reply. The basis of that reverend gentleman's criticism was fear that the Book of Common Prayer would be set aside. We have heard today hon. Members stating the contrary. Clause 1(1) of the measure clarifies the issue completely, stating clearly that should the Church Synod desire to take action on the Book of Common Prayer, it would have to come to Parliament with another measure; hence that is a protecting clause. Clause 1(3) settles the question of the form of service to be used by giving parish priests and parochial church councils joint responsibility for the decision. In the event of dispute, it also lays down a procedure to follow which gives the PCC, the grass roots of the Church, the responsibility and the right to insist upon the form of worship it desires.
With the one exception, the clergy in my constituency have indicated their majority support for the measure. Indeed, a few indicated specifically that the matter had been quite well debated and discussed at their parochial church


council meetings. Again, from the laity of the Church came a clear support for the measure. This confirms the overwhelming support for the measure as indicated by the voting figures in the Church Synod, and, together with the prior consultation processes throughout the diocesan synods, deaneries and parishes, it positively destroys the destructive argument which has been circularised among many hon. Members that the measure is at the request of a self-interested few.
That leads me to my other point. I have been approached by and have consulted hon. Members of differing religious beliefs and of no religious belief. They have expressed to me some embarrassment at being called upon to vote on a Church of England issue. They have indicated that they do not want to be involved. They have said, "It is none of my business." Unfortunately, it is their business, because previous Acts of Parliament have placed this responsibility on them. But here is an opportunity for them to remove this unwanted responsibility and to place it in the hands of the correct body.
In attempting to explain my position to them and to get the message over, I drew an industrial analogy. I quoted the situation at the firm of C of E Limited, where the managing director desired a change in the working practice. Therefore, being well up on his industrial relations and on his public relations, he initiated joint consultative procedures involving senior management, middle management and church floor operatives, and held separate and joint consultations on the proposals.
The proposals in essence give a greater degree of national control to the parent body, thereby reducing the multinational conglomerate hold on policy decisions. They establish greater grass roots participation. In some quarters that would be held to be greater progress towards worker control. The joint consultative procedures have been followed to the letter. Over 43 regional meetings have taken place and the whole exercise of participation has taken four years—a better test of feeling, some may say, than is obtained in many General Elections.
The overwhelming decision of the separate and joint groups is to recommend to the multinational control group which

should agree to the measures stated. The president of the company, who is permanently resident in another place, cannot be consulted on the matter, but it is the belief of the majority of the members of the group that acceptance of such measures could lead to beneficial mergers and that in turn could result only in better business prospects, which no doubt the president would support, and, I sincerely hope, the House would support.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: Most hon. Members of the House have been subject to a certain amount of influence by their bishops on how they should vote on this important measure this afternoon. I heard from the bishop of the diocese in which my constituency lies. I hope, however, that all hon. Members present this afternoon will listen to the debate and will in particular take note of the views of those of us, of whom I am one, who are opposed to this measure.
I am both sad and suspicious about the measure because I do not believe that the General Synod as at present constituted really represents the man in the pew. I believe that the gap is larger between him and the Synod than it is between us and our constituents. Very few people know who are their representatives on the Synod. I certainly do not. For all I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) is the first member of the Synod that I have seen in the flesh. Admirable though my hon. Friend obviously is, the Synod may have other people in it who are what I call ecclesiastical activists but not necessarily the people who represent the ordinary worshippers, of whom I claim to be one.
I believe, following what was said earlier, that if England were to be fairly polled today not 1 per cent. of the population would be aware that this debate is taking place.
If the measure is passed there is no appeal, as I understand it, to any court of law, nor is there any chance of future amendments. The General Synod will, in fact, become infallible. The powers given to the General Synod are wide and comprehensive, and the only limitation, as far as I can see, is that no service should be contrary to or depart from the doctrine


of the Church of England "in any essential matter". That seems to be an extremely vague phrase in a legal document. But what worries me is that it is not the same thing as giving priority, as I wish to give priority, to the Book of Common Prayer. I speak as a regular churchgoer but I doubt very much whether the new measure has been much debated at parochial church council level. I have never been asked officially to give my view on this matter until now—and I do so in another capacity, as a Member of Parliament. But I believe, having spoken to many friends and colleagues, that the views that I and many of my hon. Friends in the House hold represent a very large body of opinion in the Church of England which is not necessarily represented in the Synod.
My main concern is for the place of the Book of Common Prayer in the life of the Church as a result of the measure being passed. It is true that its continued existence is still safeguarded but there seems to be no provision for its regular use, and that worries me. What used to be a right is now to be done only by request. I hope that those who support the measure can give an answer on this vital question.
I was born in a country rectory, and brought up by Church people, and I have always believed that the three great pillars upholding English society were the Monarchy, the Church and Parliament. To me the Church of England is the Book of Common Prayer. It is, and has been, a unifying factor between all sections of opinion from extreme Evangelical to extreme Anglo-Catholic. I realise why the new versions of the Prayer Book were attempted but I believe that they have all failed, particularly Series 3, and they have not slowed down the fall in the size of congregations. There are many drawbacks to the new series, as most hon. Members will know, and it is impossible to keep language contemporary for more than a few decades. If this new series becomes part of the permanent worship of the Church it will surely need continual revision, just as we are continually revising constituency boundaries.
I find in the new versions that the grammar is faulty, the construction jerky and the prose poor, and, compared with what

I call this weak stuff, the Prayer Book's measured rhythms of prose are memorable and have been woven into the fabric of our lives in England. I will not embarrass the House by making odious comparisons between the old and new versions of the Prayer Book. Many of the comparisons become nothing but a bad joke. It is true that there are some words in the old Prayer Book which need amending, which have become out of date, but they are not many, and these few words can easily be revised without altering the whole book.
Some of us feel that religion might as well have its own language, just as any trade or craft has its own language, and as we do here, and people should be taught to understand it. Those of us who have been brought up on Cranmer's English, on The Collects, on the Authorised Version of the Book of Common Prayer feel that there is no need always to be over-familiar with the Almighty The well-known cadences of the Book of Common Prayer have supported countless generations of Christians in times of trouble in this kingdom. I know that in times of danger in the war I found myself subconsciously quoting from them. I cannot believe that many people will find themselves doing that from Series 1, 2 or 3. The language of everyday life is all very well, but I think that many people would prefer to have their language uplifted in an act of worship.
But, apart from the disadvantages in the new versions and in their language, there is a danger threatening the continued use of the Book of Common Prayer. In the words of a recent correspondent in The Times, if this measure were passed, the Prayer Book would seldom if ever be used again but would be relegated
to a dusty shelf in the church vestry.
That is my fear.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that parts of the 1662 Prayer Book are used not only in the Church of England but by hitherto dissenting Churches? Is he saying that priests of the Church of England would generally ignore what is universally regarded as one of our greatest treasures?

Mr. Stokes: Alas, they would. They have expressed the fears which I am trying to express. I fear that the trendy groups in the Church today will gain control as a result of the passing of this measure and that the views of the ordinary man in the pew will be disregarded.
There is a mania in the country today for change for change's sake. It seems to have affected the General Synod. Bodies of this kind often tend to be more "progressive and liberal" than the ordinary people whom they are supposed to represent. I recommend that some members of the General Synod should read the preface to the Book of Common Prayer, which politeness makes me refrain from quoting.
The Church of England is not to be disestablished by this measure, thank God, but I believe that it opens a yawning gap between the Church and State. That is a fundamental change in the long history of this island. Meantime, while the Church of England is still a national Church, everyone has the right to go to its services and to call for succour from its parish priests. The occasional churchgoer, far from being put off by the old language, will expect to hear the forms of service which he has known and loved since childhood rather than some of the new forms, which, in my view, without being impolite, barely rise above a sort of gibberish.

Mr. Pattie: Does my hon. Friend accept that he is arguing against a measure which will safeguard and protect the Prayer Book for which he is speaking?

Mr. Stokes: The safeguards are not nearly enough. I want the measure to be rejected so that the Synod will reconsider it and present it again with proper safeguards. The present safeguards are not adequate. If this measure is passed, the Book of Common Prayer will hardly be used in five years and it will have virtually disappeared in 10 years.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: Will my hon. Friend assist us by outlining what further safeguards he would wish to see in an amended Prayer Book?

Mr. Stokes: I would wish the Book of Common Prayer to be used, as of right,

in parish churches, say, twice a month. I do not ask for a great deal. If this measure is passed it may never be used. I had to leave my parish church five years ago and go to a nearby village church where I could still attend Communion service under the old Book of Common Prayer. More and more people like myself will be driven from their churches if this measure is passed.
Returning to the question of language, the 1662 book is very similar to the 1552 book and was written at a time when the English language was at its most glorious. The new services are as likely to unsettle people as to claim new adherents. Above all, we in this historic House should revere what has been handed down to us and be very careful about any changes we make. The measure should be rejected so that further safeguards can be inserted to ensure the right regularly, if not very frequently, to use the book in parish churches. I speak—dare I say this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—not only out of personal and passionate conviction but proudly as a member of a party which owes its very existence to defending Church and Monarch. I fear that this measure, if passed, may utterly change the character and worship of the Church of England.
I believe that the Book of Common Prayer is one of the most precious possessions not only of the Church of England but of England itself and that it should not be done away with by a handful of Members voting in conformity with the restless spirit of the times.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I should like to take up the two major matters which the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) has highlighted—the use of the Book of Common Prayer, and the relationship between Church and State, which lies behind much of our debate.
However, first I wish to add my congratulations to those expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on the skilful and clear way in which he introduced the debate, despite interruptions which were not in the best traditions of the House, let alone in the best traditions of Christian charity.
We have heard arguments about whether the position of the Book of


Common Prayer is protected in this measure. I do not wish to enter into that detailed and technical discussion. I want to question the attitude not of those who wish to preserve the use of the Book of Common Prayer but of those who regard the Book of Common Prayer in its 1662 form in a way which verges on bibliolatry.
I am very attached to the Book of Common Prayer. Like other Members I love its language. I also like the confessions in it, which are far more theologically sound than the namby-pamby confessions in subsequent series. But why 1662? Why not 1552 or, better still, 1549, presuming that we would delete that clause in the litany in the 1549 book which asks the Almighty to deliver us from the Bishop of Rome and all his enormities. I presume that in this ecumenical age we should have to delete such a clause.
I wonder whether the defenders of the 1662 book would agree with all its contents, whether of word or of rubric. For example, the opening of the marriage service tells us in words similar to those used by St. Paul that it is better to marry than to burn. The words are not quite the same, but the message comes over loud and clear. Again, in the same service there is a rubric which tells us that the best man should put on the Book at the appropriate time not only the ring but the fee as well. I wonder if that practice is continued in the church which the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge regularly attends. Hon. Members may laugh, but in a church in which I served as a curate this rubric was observed and the fee was put on the Book at that point in the service, albeit discreetly enclosed in an envelope.
In the 1662 form of the Catechism we find these words:
To order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters".
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge spoke of well-known cadences. Those are also some of the well-known cadences of the 1662 version——

Dr. Colin Phipps: They are part of the constitution of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Clemitson: Even the most ardent advocates of the 1662 version pick and

choose, and quite rightly so. Why should they not pick and choose?
We have all, presumably, been written to by our respective bishops. I will quote from a letter which the Lord Bishop of St. Albans wrote to me, with the sentiments of which I entirely agree. The letter reads as follows:
I should myself be sorry if the use of the Book of Common Prayer were discontinued. I believe that its language has great beauty and a kind of epic character. It has long proved itself as a means by which men's hearts may be caught up in worship. On the other hand, I believe that many people today require greater freedom in their approach to God, and there is no doubt that the Book of Common Prayer was in some of its doctrinal emphases just such a creature of its time as our experimental liturgies.
That sums up admirably my position on the Book of Common Prayer.
I turn to the relationship between Church and State, which stands behind our discussion today. We have been assured that the measure is not a move towards disestablishment. I have even heard it argued that it is a preventive measure to stop that happening. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier that it represented a changed relationship between Church and State but not necessarily, in any shape or form, a move towards disestablishment. One reason for my support of the measure is that I hope that it is a step towards disestablishment. It clearly represents a moving apart of Church and State, certainly of Church and Parliament as representative of the State.
I understand that from now on the Church through its representative institutions is to have self-government to a large extent in determining the forms of service and forms of worship it will use. Implicit in that are the doctrinal assumptions in the forms of service.
If I may address myself to the question of establishment or disestablishment, as with the Common Market there is an unholy alliance of opposites in opposition to disestablishment. On the one hand, there are those who see establishment as a way of giving some spiritual imprimatur to the status quo. On the other hand, there are those who fear that disestablishment will turn the Church of England into another sect which will turn its back on concern for and involvement in the whole gamut of human, social, political, economic and industrial life with


which the Church and its individual members should be rightly concerned.
I should not be sitting on the Labour benches rather than the Conservative benches if I agreed with the first school of thought. The Christian faith is about changing, not about defending the indefensible. I find myself in some sympathy with the second school of thought, which is right in thinking that Christianity is concerned with the whole range of human activity, individual and social. That school of thought is right in wanting to change not only individuals but society and the structure of societies. It is right to oppose a narrow sectarian view of the Church. I believe that establishment in itself has not prevented the Church of England—with certain honourable exceptions in every age—from becoming prey to the same inward-looking disease with which all Churches are afflicted. That disease is exemplified by concern with the institution in itself rather than with what the institution is for; concern with the spiritual as if it were totally other than and disconnected from material things and false dichotomies between soul and body, spiritual and material. The Church of England has been just as guilty in that as has any other Church.
I do not believe that not being established has prevented other Churches from being concerned with and involved in social, political and economic affairs. The Methodist Church is an obvious example. I speak as an Anglican, but there are many Methodists who have figured prominently in the history of the Labour movement in this country. The Society of Friends is concerned especially with peace and refugees. Not being established has not prevented those Churches and groups from being concerned with and involved in the political, economic and social affairs of the world.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful in the way he has developed his argument about disestablishment. Will he now address himself to one specific issue involved? The Church of England traditionally assumes that it has a responsibility for all the souls in a parish, all of whom have the right to avail themselves of its services. That puts it in a different position from the Methodist Church, to which I belong, and many

other Churches. Therefore, Parliament must look carefully before surrendering its power to have some influence over those services.

Mr. Clemitson: That is a valid argument. To refer back to my experience as an ordained minister of the Church of England, when I served my time in a parish in Sheffield we did not look down the visitors' book to see whether hospital inmates were Anglicans, Methodists, Sikhs, Buddhists or whatever. We visited them all. I hope that the Church, whether established or disestablished, would continue that practice. I should dearly love, as I hope would the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), to see the day when the distinctions between his Church and my Church and other Churches are eliminated. It may be that establishment is something of a bar to that reunion and reuniting of the various parts of the Christian Church which I hope we all dearly desire.
I believe that, whether we like it or not, establishment appears to people to give approval to the status quo. Establishment, whether we like it or not, imposes limitations, often subtle and difficult to detect, on criticism of the status quo within the Church. The Church does not have to be established to be involved, neither does establishment guarantee a meaningful and critical involvement. It is at best a crutch and at worst a downright impediment to the Church getting on with its real task.
I wish to see a Church—Church in the singular—which is alive, not as measured by those stupid measurements of the numbers of people populating the pews, but alive to its real object, aim and purpose, which is the promotion of the kingdom of God on earth in every part of individual and social life.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this opportunity of speaking on this important measure, but, first, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Kings wood (Mr. Walker) on the way that he introduced it and on his appointment. I wish him every success.
I should declare my interest at this stage. I was a member of the old House of Laity and of the Synod and, therefore, had something to do with this measure


in the early days. I am also a diocesan lay reader and a church warden. Therefore, I am intimately connected with the present problems of the Church of England. I welcome this measure and believe that it will be of benefit to the Church. Therefore, I commend it to the House.
I have discussed the measure, but I have not had a great number of letters. The two letters that I have had, which are significant, are from very elderly priests—one of eighty and one of ninety. I can well understand their fears and the position that they take.
I had some misgivings to start with in 1965 when permission was given by this House—underline that permission was given by this House—for alternative services. But, as the years have gone by, this power which has been given to the Church has been used carefully and with responsibility. Even though I accept Series 1 and 2—I am not happy about Series 3—I love the old 1662 Prayer Book, in particular the Collects. I have not lost my first love, but I believe that these other types of service are important today. I will elaborate that point later.
Some clerics have been unwise and jumped from one type of service to the other, therefore upsetting their congregations and causing some confusion. This must be regretted. I do not think that the liquorice-all-sorts type of service is right for, and gimmicks are not the best way to encourage people to come back to, the Church of England.
These new forms of service have contributed to the worship in our churches. Certainly they have made people discuss the services and the Prayer Book. More discussion has taken place in my church amongst young married couples and younger people than ever before because of the introduction of these alternative services. One wonders whether this would have taken place if there had not been these alternative services. They have certainly helped many younger people in their worship and made sense to many people of the difficult words of the older versions of the Prayer Book. As a father, I doubt whether my teenage children would be in the Church today but for the alternative services. I can speak only from my experience.
One of my hon. Friends saw that I had the order for Holy Communion here and wondered whether I was going to sing to the House. I assure him that I am not. However, I should like to read the sort of prayer which helps me in my worship. Take the breaking of bread:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing of the Blood of Christ?
Here in simple terms, but full of meaning, is the very essence of that Communion service.
At the end of the Communion service, all together, the prayer reads:
Almighty God,
we offer thee our souls and bodies,
to be a living sacrifice …
Send us out into the world
in the power of thy Spirit,
to live and work.
Younger people understand that sort of prayer. I, though rather an old Conservative, have benefited from that type of prayer.
To those who say that these alternative services have caused people to leave the Church, to drift away, I would say that the loss could have been much greater if those outside the Church had not been attracted in by those modern services and words that they understand.
This leads me to one of the main points that I should like to make. I believe that the Church of England—the Church of God—if it is to survive, must go forward. It must evangelise. It is to extend God's Kingdom that is vital these days. I believe that this measure helps to do just that.
The rôle of a church—some people may not like me for saying this, but I try to say it sincerely and humbly—is not as an occasional club to be used just when and where we want it—perhaps three times in our lives: baptism, marriage and burial. It is not that. It means that we must be active in bringing those outside in to take part and to belong. They have the right to be there, but they need to be brought in. I sincerely believe that these new forms of service help people to do just that.
The Church of England should be a living Church, though in some churches it seems to be dead. It should move with the peculiar power of the Holy Spirit as He changes men's attitudes in the days in which we live. The Church is a living Church and should change.
I believe that safeguards are there for those who still wish to use the 1662 Prayer Book. There is a danger here, but I hope that parochial church councils will use their powers and rights if the parishes want the 1662 Prayer Book to continue. We should not be overruled by parish priests. Let us have active and strong church councils which are prepared to take an interest in this matter, to represent the parishes, and to get what they want.
Does this safeguard the doctrine of the Church of England? The answer to that question is "Yes". This is found in Clause 4. This is a matter of crucial importance. The form of worship may vary, the words may be brought up to date and put into modern form, but it is essential that the basic doctrine of our faith is maintained. There must be no departure from this doctrine. In a confused world, a world that is full of doubts, and has lost its way spiritually, it is important that the essential faith of the 1662 Prayer Book remains. I believe that this is still embodied in the new services that we have today.
It is essential also that the Church never forgets that we need to have that rock, faith, that rock, belief, and the one who said,
I am the Way, the Truth and the Light.
I believe that these things are found in Series 2, and this is something that we can recommend to many who are not interested in these things.
All our services, whatever the number or the date, should be based on Holy Scripture. We move away from that at our peril. Scripture, I believe, is able to make us wise unto salvation, is given to us for reproof and instruction. Therefore, these services must be based on scriptural doctrines. This measure assures us of that. It is clearly set out in Clause 5, "Interpretation":
'The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures'".
This is essential. I believe that these modern alternative services measure up to what I have said.
I too am slightly worried by the fact that there may be more services. That would be wrong. Let us have a period of stability. We are assured of this, but I hope that the Synod, of which I am not a member now, will take note of the

fears expressed today. We do not need any more alternative services, and I hope that we shall have a period of stability. That being said, we can and should support this measure.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments, because many hon. Members still wish to speak. He will see I agree with much that he said.
I had thought that this measure might have gone through in half an hour, almost on the nod, but it is a matter of pride to me that so many Members have attended the debate. The House has shown a real interest in this measure, and I am proud of that concern.
Hon. Members who have spoken so far have expressed various points of view within the Church of England, some of them critical, all sincere, some profound. I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on his selection for the office he now holds and on his presentation. To balance the critics of this measure within his own Church, I offer the support of a Methodist Member—not the first time that Methodists have come to the aid of the Church of England, and I hope not the last.
In this debate we are all to a degree "Defenders of the Faith" regardless of the fact that such title was given to a different monarch for defending a different faith and that we are members of different faiths and creeds. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in a more charitable mood some years ago, recognised that when we accept the responsibilities of office as Members of Parliament we also accept a degree of responsibility for judgment and decisions on other matters, including now the affairs of the Church of England.
No one in my constituency—bishop, priest or laky—asked for my support for thus measure. I did have letters from the BCP Action Group, signed by Mr. Trefusis, and from the Anglican Association. I then consulted members of the Anglican Church in my constituency. My concern was not only that the measure should not be railroaded through but that the minority view should also be expressed. As it has turned out, my concern was


groundless. From my consultations in Liverpool, West Derby, I found that not only the clergy but the laity were overwhelmingly in favour of the measure. Not for the first time in 10 years in this place, I believe myself tonight to be their representative, their delegate, expressing the view of my constituents. It so happens that I agree with them, but in this regard their wish has been expressed.
This measure comes at an appropriate time, as the "Synodian", the hon. Member for Devon, West, said—a time of change for all Churches, with an older archbishop retiring and crowning his endeavours with this measure, with York going to Canterbury and Liverpool going to York.
Some of the words of the measure are as far away as can be from the Prayer Book, the Act of Uniformity and the New Testament itself. I doubt whether Jesus Christ would understand the words:
The enactments specified in Schedule 1 to this Measure shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in that Schedule, being amendments consequential upon the preceding provisions of this Measure.
Yet it is not the words but their purpose which is important.
In paragraph 7 the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee says:
The Commission were specifically required by their terms of reference 'to take account of current and future steps to provide greater unity between the Churches'".
This measure makes some move towards that end. It deserves the support of the House, and it will certainly have mine.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, on his appointment and on his appearance to move this measure. In view of the speeches that we usually hear from him, it was pleasant to hear him speaking in favour of a measure which has at least an element of denationalisation of the Church of England.
It is a typical British anomaly that we should be debating the doctrine and forms of service of the Church of England. Whatever we are elected for, it is not our piety, our theological or liturgical knowledge, the regularity of our attendance of church, or even our membership

of the Church of England. But there are odder things in Christendom than that. I understand that the keys of the door to the most sacred church in Christendom, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, are held by a Moslem Arab family because the various Christian sects could not agree who should hold them. That is an odd thing in Christendom, if ever there was one.
Our debate today is part of the curious system by which the Church of England is governed, along with the unusual method of appointing bishops. In the circumstances of today, I believe that the House of Commons must respect the authority of the bishops and the Synod. They have the responsibility and must in the end answer for the state of the Church. We should therefore be very cautious before rejecting this measure.
We have constitutional rights and duties de jure but I believe that, de facto, we are not quite in the position we seem to be in. Our rights de facto are like the rights of the sovereign, as Bagehot described them—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn.
The King may say to his Minister, said Bagehot:
The responsibility of these measures is upon you. Whatever you think best shall be done. … But you will observe that for this reason and that reason what you propose to do is bad. …It is not my duty to oppose but observe that I warn.
If the King is right, said Bagehot, he may not always change the Minister's course but he will always trouble his mind.
I want to spend a few minutes warning the Church. I recognise that there is a difference and that the analogy with Bagehot is not quite the same, if only because the King can go on warning whereas we are asked today to vote away most of our rights to be consulted. I am very unhappy about this measure. I dislike what I think its results will be on the services of the Church.
In spite of the safeguards referred to by a number of hon. Members I believe that it will make permanent the decline, to put it no stronger, of the Book of Common Prayer. I further believe that it will make permanent the rise of the sort of experimental services which have not


been a great success, to put it no stronger. If I thought that it was the end of the 1662 Prayer Book I would certainly vote against the measure. As it is I cannot vote for it. At the same time, I shall not vote against it. Many of my constituents, clerical and lay, dislike this measure, too. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that he had not had many representations—two, I think he said. I have had a good many representations, and the balance of them has been against this measure. Two parochial church councils have taken the trouble to pass resolutions and send them to me. Both were against the measure.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If, as my hon. Friend says, he is troubled and will not vote for the measure, but will not vote against it, how can he say that Parliament is discharging its duty?

Mr. Cope: As I tried to explain earlier, I do not believe that it is Parliament's duty to take away responsibility from the bishops and the Synod. That is a serious thing to do. I shall return to that point later. That is the nub of what I believe.

Mr. Griffiths: I apologise for interrupting again, but the matter is before Parliament. Parliament must decide today. The question whether, in future, we may or may not have any responsibility is beside the point.

Mr. Cope: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I shall listen to the debate. At the same time, I should be misleading the House if I said anything to suggest that my present opinion is other than that I shall not vote in the Division. My hon. Friend states the de facto position correctly. De facto, we should be most unwise to take this responsibility away from the leaders of the Church.
I appreciate that some people feel that the language of the 1662 Prayer Book is not clear—that the meaning is not always at once apparent. But forms of worship are not designed primarily for quick appreciation, as are, for example, instructions on a fire extinguisher. Forms of service must be able to be used weekly or daily for a lifetime and still retain the power to make one reflect on the words used. What we seek in a service, in religion, is a feeling that we are in

touch, at least for a few minutes, with something of the wisdom of the ages.
I do not subscribe to the view, expressed earlier in a slightly different form, that the man in the street is put off if he looks into a church and finds that the parson or lay reader is speaking in seventeenth century language. The man in the street is probably more put off by the sermon which is in modern English, just as so many people are put off political meetings by the speeches. People today do not believe that the vicar has the entire answer, or that he has some great proof or inspiration which he can produce, renewed, every week. It would be unreasonable of them to expect this.
When I go to church I want to be in touch with some of the great truths that have been handed down to us from our ancestors. Sometimes the 1662 language has an unconscious meaning. In my constituency, as in that of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, many people work in the commercial aircraft division of BAC. We accept literally the description of the Almighty as not only the "author of peace" but also "the lover of concord". I do not find that such unconscious meanings detract from an appreciation of the truth behind the words. On the contrary, they help to keep the phrases alive and the listeners alert.
To recite modern English with a clear meaning week after week reduces it to drivel. To try to rewrite it every week or every year or two is a mistake. In too many aspects of our lives we have become mesmerised by the latest thing—the trendy and the new. We tend to think that it is the same with religion. It is easy to slip into the idea that all that is needed to get through to as many people as quickly as possible is the latest thought from Lambeth or somewhere else on the South Bank. That is an illusion.
The faster and more confusing the world is the more people want to feel in their religion that they are being brought back to the tried and tested truths. I do not know whether it is good theology, but I believe that words become sacred with use. I believe the same applies to buildings. Another reason why I am unlikely to vote against this measure is that it would be a mistake to


attempt to make too rigid—which would be one of the results of discarding this measure—every word of all our services, making them follow the formula settled in 1662. That would be to follow "the letter which killeth" rather than
the spirit which giveth life.
I worry considerably that if this measure were to be defeated we might find that some Church of England priests, if not all, prayed to rubric, and that might have some unfortunate consequences. Among others things, it would mean that we would have the Litany every Sunday. That is not something I would welcome.

Mr. Cormack: I would.

Mr. Cope: Perhaps my hon. Friend already has the Litany every Sunday, in which case he is welcome to it. If not, he must read it to himself. One of the great virtues and strengths of the English Church has always been supposed to be its lack of rigidity. This is something which we should allow the Church to keep. We have been assured that there will not be a Series 4, 5 or 6. I hope that these reassurances prove to be correct, although I am not terribly hopeful about the long term. They may be correct in the next few years, but I believe that Series 4, 5 and 6 will follow in 10, 20 or 30 years, and the present series are unlikely to last for as long as the 1662 Prayer Book has lasted in its form.
I welcome the assurances that have been given on this point this afternoon and in a debate in another place. The greatest loss resulting from altering the service in the way in which it has been altered in the last few years is the certainty and the assurance that people need and feel when they go to church. Let us at least keep one part of the week when we can reflect on this ancient language and on the ways in which our ancestors have worshipped.
The safeguards in the 1662 Prayer Book are as strong as can reasonably be expected in the circumstances, but I hope that the men in the pew who have been referred to this afternoon, if they hold some of the views which have been expressed on this side of the House, will have the courage to stand out against the will of the vicar, as it were—it may take courage, sometimes—and insist that

the 1662 Prayer Book continues alive. If this were lost—if this were allowed to fall into total disuse—it would be a great loss to the English Church and the English nation.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on introducing this Motion. It is singularly appropriate because I understand that his constituency is the stronghold of Methodism, for all sorts of historic reasons, and perhaps that is a sign of the times.
We are having two debates this afternoon, but so far none of my hon. Friends has distinguished them. We are having a debate about the language of the Christian faith and a debate about authority in the Church of England. With the repeal of the Act of 1662 the final authority in the Church of England, if the measure is passed, will pass from this place. There are people here who are doubtful that there are sufficient safeguards in the alternative structure incorporated in the measure. In particular, the case of the Prayer Book has been mentioned. In the future there may be other matters of difference and fears concerning other features of the Church's life.
It is appropriate to quote from the records of the House. I have with me Parliamentary History, Vol. 13, Charles II, 1661, and I wish to quote from col. 240 as follows:
… the Bill was no sooner read there"—
that is, in this House—
than every man according to his passion thought of adding somewhat to it, that might make it more grievous to somebody whom he did not love, which made the discourses tedious and vehement and full of animosity.
I am glad that we have not had that sort of debate this afternoon. My own interest as a convinced Congregationalist —my denomination was founded because 300 Church of England parsons walked out on St. Bartholomew's day—gives me a vested interest in the repeal of this Act.
I can understand the difficulties of honourable and Christian gentlemen opposite when they see the alternative to this authority. As the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said, the debate is really about authority inside


the Church of England. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) wanted a form of authority which would impose the Prayer Book perhaps twice a month. On reflection, I hope he would not wish to use this type of authority inside the growing Christian denomination.
We are surely placed in the dilemma of a hierarchy in decline. The hierarchy of bishops, which was very clear in 1662, is now, by wish of the bishops themselves, in decline. The Archbishop in another place welcomed the increasing role of the laity. If the laity are to have assent to what the bishops in that House finally decide they will demand more and more discussion.
I noticed the remark of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) that young people of his acquaintance were stirred to discussion by the new forms of worship. They are now, in 1974, in the position of my predecessors in 1662. The freedom of discussion which that year of British history brought about made the Act of Uniformity necessary, it was thought. What they are going to say in their discussions and what they are going to tell their lay representatives to the Church Assembly, or the House of Laity, or whatever it is, will be of considerable interest when observing the way in which the Church manages to change from a hierarchy, as it was constitutionally until a few years ago, to something approaching a democracy and something approaching the historic Congregational tradition.
This is not only a matter of the Church. Time and again in this House—indeed, many hon. Members opposite and in particular the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge—we talk about the assumption of authority, where we find it, how we give it, and when we have got it how we handle it. In the coming discussions I would think that the Church of England will have to face this problem. It is the same problem whether it be of Church or State, whether Spiritual or secular and temporal.
The characteristics here have many things in common. If there is to be authority it is accountable. If there are procedures in authority, those procedures must be transparent. If people are given authority or privilege they must dis-

charge it with a sense of trusteeship, and they must use any privilege that they have in the better discharge of their obligations and for nothing else. That is surely part of the historical tradition of episcopacy itself, which is now in the stage of default.
Unless those conditions are followed, the man in the pew and the young people of tomorrow will not accept that authority. That is the situation concerning the authority of any law that we pass in this place, particularly those laws which are more controversial than others. It is not a matter of passing a law by a majority in this House, however large. It is a question of gaining the acceptance and assent of those to whom the law must apply.
That is the truth and the tradition of the Church from which I come, which has, perhaps, changed in the last few years because through an Act of this House the historic claim of the Congregational Church to be independent to itself was overturned in the twinkling of an eye, for now the power is with the Assembly of the United Reformed Church, other than those dissenting Congregationalists who remain of that faith and order. Therefore, as a convinced Congregationalist and an Independent I cannot but rejoice at the end of the Act of Uniformity.
I look forward with interest to the discussions which must take place inside the Church of England in replacing an ancient hierarchy with a new, and new form of, democratic government inside the Church.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): Does my hon. Friend intend to vote at the end of the debate?

Mr. Spearing: I hoped I made it clear that I support this measure, although I understand the reactions of some people who feel that in passing on authority from this place to another there is insufficient protection for the minority.
That is why I think that historic traditions of this place and the sort of factors which I have tried to present in terms of authority, whether secular or religious, should be entrenched in whatever procedures the Church of England now devises in order to use authority within itself.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: As a student you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is fairly clear from St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians that he did not return to Corinth because the Church there was in such confusion. I speak with some temerity as a Roman Catholic, but I think we have to face the fact that the Churches are in considerable confusion today. Labour Members who are Congregationalists and of other Churches have seen this point extremely clearly.
There are two major points I should like to touch upon. The first is the relationship of the House to the Church of England. If we pass this measure tonight it will be the last time the House will debate matters of Church as opposed to matters of State. That is a very serious matter.

Mr. Ogden: It might be the last time, but surely what Parliament has done Parliament can undo. A power that Parliament has given Parliament can take away.

Mr. Fraser: I am sure that St. Paul would not have returned to Corinth, and he would not have returned to this House either. This is an extremely serious matter and I agree with the hon. Member who said how fine it was to see so many hon. Members assembled here and not prepared to let this important measure go through on the nod.
It is difficult to say whether it is good or bad. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has talked of the populist need of the Church to be a living and vibrant organisation through the appeal or temporary advantages which may be achieved by the pursuit of political or other objectives.
Before I return to the question of where the power should be I must refer to some of the problems which have faced the Church of Rome. To my mind the Church is essentially a framework in which a man or woman can worship; even a framework, whether it be the building, the rubric, the hymn, the Mass, the Psalms or whatever, in which a person can find some communion with God.
I have a great fear, and I have seen this in the Roman Catholic Church, that

there could be innovations moved by persons who, as St. Paul found, talk in incomprehensible tongues. In that Second Epistle St. Paul has to deal with the brethren who are speaking in languages which cannot be understood. He said that what was needed was an interpreter, that these were not necessarily the voices of holy spirits but of lunatics, and we have certainly heard the voices of many lunatics amongst the clergy in the last few years. [Interruption.] I do not want to challenge the hon. Member's knowledge of the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, but let him look up the point about those who were speaking in tongues incomprehensible.
There is a great danger that the innovators speak in tongues which are incomprehensible, and those people are, I believe, a positive danger to the ordinary person. In Christianity we are a fairly orderly people and we are not all great theologians. I hope we say our prayers at night, and I am sure that my hon. Friends say them more than I do, but in church we want to be sure that we can do something we know about and that we know the form and set of the procedure. I must say to my Church of England colleagues how lucky they are to have the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and what a great misfortune it would be for this country if that were to disappear.
So there is the problem which has been a problem for religions throughout the ages, and which, I think, used to be called by the classical theologians the problem of "enthusiasm"—the problem of those who want to carry out changes just for the sake of change without altering the chances of the ordinary person before God. I think that the Roman Catholic Church has suffered in this way from too many innovations.
I return to the central point which is surely the question of the relationship of this House to the Established Church. I think that there is a great danger that the measure will try to change everything without giving the necessary precondition. It is asking the House to retain the status of the Established Church while taking away from this House the power and the responsibility for its existence. There is, I believe, a direct and deep dichotomy in this argument which one does not need


to be a theologian to see. It is extraordinary that such a measure should have been put forward without the recognition of this fact. We are being asked, to all intents and purposes, to disestablish the Church of England and yet retain it as the official Established Church, and this is the problem.
I apologise for having intervened in the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]— Very well, I rejoice in having intervened. I think it important that someone who is not of the faith of the Established Church of England should express a view. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South that we have repealed the odious Act to which he referred and as a Roman Catholic I rejoice at that, but the House is being put in a false dilemma by this measure and I find it very difficult to support it.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: My intervention will be very brief. It is somewhat significant that I should speak after a Roman Catholic who spoke after a Congregationalist, because I am outside the perimeter of the Church of England, being, as I am, a Methodist. I make no apology for that. I must confess that back in May, June and July I was placed in something of a dilemma by the number of letters I was receiving from constituents and from people in other parts of the country urging complete opposition to these measures. I made it my business to gather certain information on the matter. I asked a number of the laity and of the clergy, and I went as far as to ask some of the bishops what the position was.
I am all for change, and realise that one cannot live in the past, but I have the impression that the old act of worship will still exist if parishioners desire to use it. I believe that that is a fact of life. If that is so, I cannot see what all the fuss is about. I cannot understand why we are getting hot under the collar.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) quoted St. Paul and his various letters. I believe that there is a higher authority than St. Paul—Jesus, the Master himself. His ministry and mission were to teach people the way to live by loving one another. I only wish that mankind would accept that teaching in a greater measure than it does today.
That brings me to my final point— that I believe in the ecumenical movement. The quicker the Churches can get together, the better it will be for mankind as a whole. I was very disappointed when, a few years ago, the union was thrown out by only a small majority. I believe that there is a feeling inside Churches of all denominations today that the closer we can come together the better it will be.
I have already been told, despite all the correspondence I have received, that the old is still there if the people wish to use it for worship. Therefore, as a Methodist, I shall support the measure.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Respecting and revering the Book of Common Prayer as I do, I have the greatest sympathy with those hon. Members who see the measure as an assault upon it, led by that all too familiar ecclesiastical figure of our time, the "Rev. Trendy" or sometimes the "Right Rev. Trendy". I sympathise with them, because I share their love for the consummate beauty of the language of Cranmer's Prayer Book. I also share the alarm of those hon. Members at some of the excesses of the wilder of the Church's radicals.
But to oppose the measure merely because one loves the Prayer Book and dislikes, for example, the works of Bishop John Robinson, merely because one may wish to see the one read universally and the other read not at all, would be a bad mistake. For it would not be possible for the Church today to impose the universal use of the Prayer Book once again, even if Parliament or the General Synod wished to do so.
Even in the nineteenth century, when uniformity was sought to be enforced by resort to the courts of law, clergymen were prepared to go to prison, and did, for their dissenting beliefs in this regard. It took the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure to get them and the Church and the courts off that hook.
We have been reminded by the Second Church Estates Commissioner of the opinion of the Royal Commission in 1906 that the forms of worship were too closely ordered even in those days. Since 1965, and for many years before, there has been in use a wide selection of variant


and alternative services to those of the Prayer Book.
This aspect of the Act of Uniformity has for long, in truth, been dead. Our failure to give it a Christian burial has been something of a scandal.
I deeply respect and sympathise with the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) and Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who fear that to pass the measure would be in some way to confirm the decline of the Book of Common Prayer. But one must not shut one's eyes to the fact that in a wide geographical area of the Church of England in this country the Book of Common Prayer has gone into desuetude. I personally regret that, but I cannot close my mind to the deeply and widely held opinion among those who are active in the Church in the new housing estates, for example, that they will not get the residents of those estates to come to church so long as, when they come for the first or second time, they are confronted by services in the language of 1662. I cannot believe that that opinion, so widely held, is wrong. I feel it right that provision should be made to cater for that opinion, not by banning the Prayer Book of 1662—the measure does not do that; I should never vote for it if it did—but by providing that alternative services with the mandate of the General Synod should be available.
Therefore, the question tonight is not whether there should be provision for change in the authorised services of the Church. We have had change de facto for many years. The question is how such change should come about.
I believe that no other Church in Christendom lacks the authority to order its own forms of worship. What special inadequacy do we discern in our own Church of England, which is still the leader of the Anglican Communion throughout the world, that should drive us to deny to it the same degree of autonomy? There are perhaps those who say that it lies in the fact that it is an established Church. I do not agree with the views so eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) that to pass the measure would be incom-

patible with retaining Establishment. We do not have to look further than the Church of Scotland to see an example of an established Church that has the right to order its own forms of worship. The Archbishop dealt with the matter convincingly in another place on 14th November.
Is it because we do not trust the bishops that we are unwilling to confer the degree of autonomy that the Church apparently wants? If that is the answer, it would scarcely be a logical reason for voting for the measure, because it is not the Church that appoints the bishops.
Is it that we do not trust the clergy? [Interruption.] It may be, but the current measure of 1965 confers upon the clergy a right of veto when a suggestion is made for an alternative service such as those services authorised under Series 1, 2 or 3. The present measure takes away that right of veto.
I fear that the truth is—I respect and understand it—that what really inspires those who feel obliged to oppose the measure is that they do not trust the fidelity with which the laity are represented in the General Synod. But the House set up the General Synod and the whole synodical structure for the government of the Church. It may well be imperfect. I expect that it is, but I believe that its electoral system is the best that practical considerations will permit in the Church today.
There is nothing that the Synod may do which is contrary to the wishes of the Church as a whole that cannot be reversed at the next elections. When I compare the system, with all its evident imperfections, with the present system whereby this House has the final say in matters of worship and doctrine, I cannot feel confident that the House of Commons or Parliament as a whole is a more representative forum.
We should not forget that church services are instructional as well as devotional. Euclid's Elements of Geometry were first translated into English in 1570, between the issue of the first Prayer Book and that of Cranmer's Prayer Book. But we do not today teach those elements in the language of that translation. We should not insist that the teaching of the Church be conducted in the language, beautiful though it is, of 300 years ago.
This measure does not "do away with" the Prayer Book. On the contrary, it entrenches it as a source of the doctrine of the church. It requires its services to be used where priest and people in a parish disagree on an alternative service.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) said that this House set up the synodical form of government. That was not done by means of a Bill passed by this House. It was a measure drawn up outside this House which, like this measure, we can only accept or reject. We cannot amend it. It is not relevant to say that this House set up the form of synodical government.

Mr. Mayhew: I gratefully accept that correction of my inaccuracy. The House authorised or approved synodical government.
This measure does not put the Church at the mercy of some transient whim, fashion, or storm of opinion, because the legislative safeguards are cumbrous in the extreme. It satisfies a demand overwhelmingly expressed in the dioceses and in the General Synod that in matters of worship and doctrine the Church of England should at last be given this qualified independence—it is only qualified— of Parliament.
It would be idle to deny that we face a danger from unsoundly based progressiveness in the Church. We also face a danger from unsoundly based reaction. In my belief we face less risk of the first if we approve this measure than of the second if we defeat it.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. John Ryman: This is the first occasion since my election to this House that I have had the privilege of addressing it. I understand that in making a maiden speech there are certain conventions which ought to be followed. I have been told that I must speak about my predecessor, my constituency, and the measure before the House, and that under no circumstances should I be controversial.
I am grateful for having been allowed to speak in this debate, which is as important a debate as has been held in this Parliament, despite the many burning issues that have so far been debated.
The interest shown in the measure before the House focuses the interest of

the country on this very important measure. While recognising the serious misgivings of those who oppose the measure, I strongly support it, the crux of the matter being that the Church is given powers, subject to substantial safeguards, to regulate its own affairs.
Reverting to the conventional matters I must allude to, I mention first my predecessor. He was the Member of Parliament for the Blyth constituency for 14 years, from 1960 until the autumn of this year. I understand that he was an extremely conscientious and hard-working Member. I understand that he earned the respect of all with whom he came into contact in this House. I pay a sincere tribute to him.
The Blyth constituency, which is situated in the north-east of England, has a coalmining background, although over the years a number of pits have unfortunately been closed. The people in my constituency form the backbone of this country. Many of our best regiments do most of their recruiting in Northumberland. There is now a battalion, serving in Londonderry, made up of men principally from my constituency. The service performed by my constituents to the country, both in a military and a civilian capacity, is second to none.
The importance of the mining community needs only to be stated to be understood. Many people do not appreciate the hardships undergone by miners working in my constituency. When talks are proceeding concerning wage negotiations or industrial difficulties in the mining industry, I do not think it is appreciated how arduous, dangerous and difficult the work is. Men in my constituency, on whichever shift they work, arrive at the pit during the hours of darkness. They work all day, or all night. They have a 20-minutes break for lunch—and no more than 20 minutes—underground. When their work is finished, if they have been on the day shift, it is still dark. If they have been working on the night shift they arrive home in time for breakfast. They never see the sky throughout their working days.
In other respects also the mining industry is the backbone of this country. One of the problems faced by the people living in my constituency is that when pit closures have occurred there has been


insubstantial investment in the North-East to compensate those areas which have suffered from closures. Representing a constituency in the North-East, I see it as my job to fight very hard for regional aid in that area. It is all very well for Scotland and Wales to obtain a great deal of regional aid by being militant. The people in the North-East have behaved very responsibly in that sense. We urgently want Government aid to replace and help expand industrially those areas which have been neglected for years by successive Governments. The position in the North-East is very serious and urgent.
The rate of unemployment in my constituency is almost twice the national average. The level of wages there is between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. less than the national average. There are fewer job opportunities. There are fewer social and educational opportunities, despite very hard work and far sighted proposals made by the local and county authorities. Those are the sort of constituency issues for which I shall fight.
I apologise for making my maiden speech rather late in the day, because I understand that I am the last Government supporter to do so. Soon after the General Election, I was a passenger in a motor car that was involved in an accident, and I was in hospital for some time. As a result, I arrived somewhat late at the beginning of this Session. One of the first letters I found when I arrived was from an organisation of which I am a member, wishing me a speedy recovery. It was signed by the secretary, and it said that it had been
decided to send me a message for my speedy recovery, which had been passed by 11 votes to 8 with 5 abstentions.
In those circumstances, I have taken my time before addressing the House. I am indebted to Mr. Deputy Speaker for allowing me to do so today.
I have been sounding out a number of bishops whom I know personally, about this measure. I had the pleasure some years ago of dining with a bishop. He invited me to a club. I think that it was called the Athenaeum. While waiting for my host, I was thumbing through the members' suggestions book and I came

across the following, which may interest hon. Members:
Last night a Socialist peer dined here. Can't anything be done about this?
From talking to bishops, who are far more versed in these matters than I could ever be, my judgment, for what it is worth, is that if this measure is not passed the door will be open for a very strong campaign for Disestablishment.
What is this measure about, in essence? Basically, it empowers the General Synod, subject to certain very strong safeguards, to prepare, approve and introduce new forms of worship other than those contained in the Book of Common Prayer without recourse to Parliament. The two safeguards are very sensible and strong ones. The first is that the Book of Common Prayer remains available for use in all churches. The second is that any new form of service has to be approved in the General Synod by very substantial majorities in each of the three Houses. About as near as it can be done, those constitute solid safeguards.
I am a little worried about some of the phraseology in the measure, a good deal of which is totally incomprehensible. I refer specifically to Clause 1(4), and it may be that before the debate ends we shall have some enlightenment about its meaning. It is a thoroughly ambiguous and confusing subsection. It reminds me of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which describes a short lease as a lease which is not a long lease.
The language of the subsection is thoroughly confusing. The latter part of it reads:
but that if any of the persons concerned objects beforehand to the use of the service selected by the minister and he and the minister cannot agree as to which form is to be used, the matter shall be referred to the bishop of the diocese for his decision.
At first sight, there is no clear interpretation available of what constitutes "persons concerned". There is no clear and available definition of what constitutes "beforehand". There is no guidance in the definition clause or anywhere else in the Bill as to what period of time it is envisaged will elapse by way of appeal to the bishop of the diocese.
Those points are not clear in a measure to which otherwise I give my wholehearted support. In the circumstances, I beg to support the measure, bearing in mind that I am making my maiden speech and that, as I see it, my principal job here is to represent the people in my constituency as strongly as possible and to give them the help that they need so desperately.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: It is always a pleasure to be called immediately after a maiden speaker. I want to welcome the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman), but to suggest to him that he did not go quite far enough in paying tribute to his predecessor. Among those of us who worked with him for so long in this House he had an extremely good reputation. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I thought that he gave a very good description of the sturdy qualities of his constituents. He avoided saying much about the beauty of his constituency, for reasons which we all know. The hon. Gentleman has shown his ability and versatility. We look forward to hearing him speak again. For a maiden speaker to range from the Athenaeum Club to a coal mine is a pretty good effort.
We also know the hon. Gentleman's profession. He often prosecutes the Inland Revenue. In view of his calling, clearly he understands the details of this measure very well. In discussing it, it was to be expected that he would pick out certain technical details. As I say, I hope that we shall have an opportunity of hearing him again, and I am sure that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I also hope that he is is the last Socialist maiden speaker, we shall hear for a great many years.
Those of us who are familiar with the workings of this House know that at 6.45 p.m. on a Wednesday a number of Committees are sitting upstairs and will be as surprised as I am to see so many hon. Members in the Chamber. Their pre sence indicates the great interest that hon. Members have in this issue. It occurs to me that there are more hon. Members present for this debate on the Church of England than there were in St. Margaret's, Westminster, for the service to celebrate

the opening of the new Parliament. It suggests that the measures of Parliament are more interesting to their constituents than their own holy good.
The speeches in this debate have been thoughtful and have ranged over a number of different aspects, representing different churches in the realm. The speeches have, on the whole, shown a cross-section of opinion, as this Chamber is supposed to reflect the views of the nation.
My attention was first brought to this measure not by my bishop but by an incumbent in my constituency who wrote asking me whether, because of the printing strike, I could give him some particulars about how this measure had come to the House. He wrote to me at the end of July. We had just started the Summer Recess and, as a result, I was able to give the matter a great deal of attention. Two days later, I began receiving letters from other constituents, members of the same parish church, who wanted to see me privately, without the vicar's knowledge. As I know what a highly respected individual he is, I was fascinated by these approaches.
Today's speeches rather bear out the feeling of the public and of congregations that they trust their vicars but that they wish that they knew more of what was going on in the Church. There is a great deal in this. In common with non-churchgoing constituents, members of congregations only write to their Members of Parliament about matters affecting them, or something about which they have read. This situation shows a serious defect in the organisation of the Church of England.
As an hon. Member pointed out earlier, if this measure were amendable, an amendment would be tabled very quickly and, if I judge the feeling of the House correctly, it would say "Go this far and no farther." I believe that a number of hon. Members would be prepared to support the measure if it were the end. That is the impression that I have gained from my own constituents.
I have been approached by some elderly people who love the old Prayer Book and the old service. Because they live in a town containing and surrounded by a number of churches they were prepared to go to the church that gave them the service that gave them the greatest


spiritual joy. With that in mind they wrote to the bishop to ask him which church they should go to, so that they could enjoy the 1662 service. To my utter surprise, they received a letter which told them that no one in the diocese knew which church offered such a service.
Surely that must be wrong. Surely those who wish to worship in the way that suits them best should be able to obtain the relevant information. Surely they should not have to go round all the churches in the hope that they will arrive at the right time for the right service. Those who have charge of the services and the interests of a church must do something to ensure that a greater degree of publicity is given to the type of service that the church offers.
On balance we should accept this measure. As Members of Parliament we do our duty in representing our constituents, but we as Members do not have the same knowledge of the Church as those who sat in this Chamber 100 years ago. It must be wrong that the Church of England is one of the few bodies which does not have control of its own affairs. Why should an assembly consisting of Catholics, Jews, Methodists, Congregationalists and others—let them be named and we have them—have a say in the affairs of the Church of England? Why should the Church not be able to control its own affairs?
As the Church of England is the Established Church it has an obligation to the State. We in this Chamber should not act in the day-to-day running of the Church, but we should be able to act as a long stop. I want to know what will happen if this measure is passed and the Church goes trendy. There is a danger that it will go trendy. Those who have studied the history of the Roman Catholic Church know that some Popes have gone wrong. We know that not every bishop is an angel. We know that not every bishop understands the views of his parishioners. This measure is for all time. We have very good bishops now but we may not have good bishops for all time. There must be some final way in which we or our successors can have final control of the Church of England.
I must be short as I must not preach a sermon. My final decision on this

measure will be made when I hear the winding-up. I shall be influenced by what is said about the ultimate control, if any, that this House will hold over the Church of England.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The supporters of this measure are making a great mistake in supposing that the malady of the Church is largely due to its ancient liturgy and that changes of form in a changing world will help to restore its fortunes. The malady is at least partly caused by the preoccupation of all too many clergy with politics rather than religion, with men's bodies rather than their souls, and with outward forms of language rather than the spirit.
Recent leaders of the Church must bear a large part of the blame for the current weakness of the Church. It is at least partly their fault that it now drifts rudderless over a sea of doubt. In 1965 we gave Church leaders authority to experiment with other forms of service. They now say, not that the experiments that have been made have proved so successful that the decline in membership has been halted, but that the results have not been quite satisfactory and that they want us to give them the right not to refer to us if they want to make future changes. That is quite a different matter. That is the dichotomy to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) has referred.
We are therefore faced with an unacceptable proposition. The real purpose of this measure is for the Church to cut itself off from outside control. Indeed, some of the protagonists of the measure do not hide that that is their intention. If we agree to this measure, how soon after will the Church demand the right to appoint its own bishops? I understand that that proposition is already on the way. It will soon reach us if this measure is passed. Once the Church can do that there will be no argument left against Disestablishment. The Church would then no longer be entitled to claim a privileged position in our constitution.
In form, this measure is concerned with experimental forms of service. I understand the comments of some hon. Members who are in favour of the measure when they say that they see no danger in the Book of Common Prayer being


revised or arrangements made whereby it might still be used when a congregation so wishes. But how does one move from that argument to the argument that the ultimate control of Church doctrine, the sanction and authority under the British constitution, should be transferred from Parliament—the representatives of the English people—to a small knot of professional and committed churchmen?
If the Church could devise revised forms of service with a language which even began to approach the sheer beauty of that which it wishes to replace, the argument in favour of changes in the liturgy would be stronger. What has been produced so far is very poor stuff indeed. It is uninspiring and sometimes as meaningless as the original. The Prayer Book should not be cast aside and relegated to the class of "also available" with such little thought.
In another place the Bishop of Durham rather betrayed the argument by saying,
Nothing can surpass the Book of Common Prayer as the classic statement of what the Church of England is, but it belongs to its time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 897.]
That is quite untrue, because it belongs to all time. It is inspired language. It is not the sort of language that belongs only to its own day. The very fact that it has lasted for so long is testimony to that.
There is no evidence that the retention of the Book of Common Prayer has helped to bring about the decline in the size of congregations. On the contrary, in my experience and in my opinion, the effect of the changes and the experimental forms of worship has been to drive away from the Church the very people whose attachment to it in the past may not have been very strong but whose loyalty the Church must recapture if it is to reverse the current decline. In a turbulent, dangerous and changing world, what folly it is for the Church to ally itself with the desire for change. What a time for innovation in matters of this kind.
What bothers me most is that no reasons—no good reasons, anyway—have been given for this proposal, which aims fundamentally to alter the relations between Church and State. One is entitled to ask in what way the Church has suffered from its alliance with Crown and

Parliament. When and where has Parliament interfered with the just claims of the Church? What has Parliament done to justify the abrogation of its sovereignty? We have not heard— certainly not in this debate.
During the debate in another place it was suggested that the rejection of this measure would lead to pressure for Disestablishment which it would be impossible to resist. I do not like the implication of that argument. No reasons have been given to justify the breaking of a centuries-old feature of our constitution. There is merely the threat that if we do not agree to self-government the Church will make a UDI. That is the language of blackmail, which is certainly inappropriate for a Church founded upon the Christian religion.
Moreover, the constitutional position has not been sufficiently considered. The implication of the measure has not been well thought out by its supporters. It has certainly not been considered by the supporters of the measure in the debate. Consider, for example, the fact that Her Majesty the Queen is the Head of the Church, or the supreme governor. At her Coronation she took an oath to
maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law.
In that solemn moment, she was asked:
Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline and government thereof, as by law established in England?
Her Majesty replied:
All this I promise to do.
How can we now transfer from ourselves—as the Queen in Parliament—the power ultimately to determine the doctrine, worship and government of the Church without causing Her Majesty to break the spirit, if not the substance, of that Oath? Is this a matter of no consequence for the supporters of the measure? Is the Coronation Oath so lightly to be set aside?
My basic objection to the measure is that the Church of England is not a piece of property which can be handed over to any one group of people. It is a part of our history. It is an important feature of our constitution, a part of every Englishman's inherited sense of tradition. It is the heritage of the


common people. It does not belong to the clergy and the participating laity of any particular age. Its role in English national life is too strongly entrenched for us to make over the vital power over doctrine to a small group of activists, many of whom cannot easily escape—I say this with great respect—the charge of self-interest. The Church, under God, belongs to at least 36 million of us English, not solely to the mere 36,000 who are supposed to be directly represented on the General Synod.
One of the weakest parts of the case for the measure rests upon the argument that the General Synod has a democratic right to claim the transfer of power to itself. Indeed, some of us have received letters from our bishops, as I have, in that sense. But nothing could be further from the truth, because whom do these 500-odd people of the General Synod represent? A few thousand, in this country of over 40 million. The electoral system as arranged for the General Synod does not extend even to the 2 million who may be described as churchgoers. It certainly does not extend to the millions upon millions of English men and women who may not go to church regularly but who identify themselves with it in the last resort. If one asks an Englishman what his religion is, nine times out of 10 he will say, "C of E". That is a matter of great significance. I ask the people behind the measure to ponder upon it long before they break the association between the Church of England and the ordinary English people.

Mr. Pattie: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the size of turn-out at an election in which the entire population of England was involved on this basis?

Mr. Stanbrook: That is an interesting aspect of the argument on behalf of the measure. The turn-out at General Elections, at least in my part of the country, is 80 per cent. of the electorate. What my hon. Friend is suggesting, presumably, is that this does not justify our retaining the power over the Established Church which we have always had as part of the law of this country. To suggest that 36,000 people are a sufficient sector of the Church to have all power

concentrated in their hands for the purpose of doctrine is just a nonsense.
The Church was not established for its own sake, and certainly not for the sake of its clergy. It was established for the sake of all the people, the whole English people. That is why it was endowed with privileges such as were granted to no other Church. No other Church, with the possible exception of the Church of Scotland, possesses its powers and privileges in relation to the State. With the passage of history, it has become a condition of its Establishment and of its State privileges that Parliament should have ultimate control.
Let those trendy clerics who seek to control the Church of England go out and form their own church. Let them have their own liturgy. Let them devise as many alternative forms of service as they wish. Let there be no external control. Then let us see whether their parishioners prefer their version to the Church which they have already, in which Parliament is sovereign.
The bond between the Church and the nation as represented by parliamentary sovereignty has lasted for centuries. It has been fruitful to both sides. What arrogance it is, what presumption, for some 500-odd people to say, "We are the Church. We are entitled to run it and to determine these fundamental matters in the way that we like, because we say so. Forget the common people. Forget those whose membership is confined to attending at baptisms, weddings and funerals. We are concerned and we care only for the active weekly churchgoers." That is the antithesis of a spiritual approach to the problem, and it ignores the interests of the nation as a whole.
Parliament, and Parliament alone, represents the English people. Parliament, with the Queen, is sovereign over the Church. Let us therefore say to the professionals and to those who want to take over our Church: "We are the people It is our Church. You shall not have it."

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his eloquent and effective speech.
I say at the start that I am not in the least surprised that there has been a


greater attendance in the Chamber to debate this measure than there is on many other occasions. Of all the subjects that attract correspondence from my constituents, matters appertaining to the Church certainly hold the record for volume of correspondence. Indeed, on the question of capital punishment, a matter of some public moment, I can count the letters in hundreds. But some years ago when the measure on clergy's vestments was introduced I counted the letters in thousands. At that time I did, through the good offices of local churchmen, stage something close to a fancy dress parade to enable the clergy to put on their chasubles and cloaks so that I could see and understand what it was I was voting on.
Tonight I also feel a sense of occasion. If the measure is passed no debate similar to this one will take place in this House again. No doubt we may later consider questions of disestablishment, but on this matter of Parliament's control or otherwise of the doctrines of the Church, this debate could well prove to be the last.
It is important to realise that if we pass the measure tonight we have made an irrevocable decision about something fundamental to the constitution of our country——

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is it not true that if there were to be a matter with a strong doctrinal content but which involved perhaps, other matters there would have to be a reference to this House? To that limited sense what my hon. Friend has said is not—though I accept it was unintentional—strictly accurate.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept anything my hon. Friend says on the matter. But I am looking at the practicality. If we pass the measure tonight, whatever the details, we shall not again have a debate of this kind.
I approached this matter with an open mind. I almost took it for granted that on any measure to which the bishops, the Synod and the clergy had given such depth of thought and careful consideration I should almost prima facie support them. Therefore, I looked at the measure favourably. But my examination of the measure and its likely consequences has led me to be very doubtful about the wisdom of passing it tonight.
I have judged it in three respects. I put them simply: is it good for the Church; is it good for Parliament; and, beyond that, is it likely to be good for our nation?
On the first question—is it good for the Church?—I assert straight away that it is within the right of Parliament to decide that matter. It cannot be said that what is good for the Church shall be wholly and exclusively decided by Church men themselves. We have an established Church, and, therefore, it is proper for Parliament to determine whether this measure is good for the Church—Parliament in consultation with the Church and clergy, but neverthless Parliament.
The Synod tells us that it is good for the Church, and the bishops say so, too, and we must give the greatest respect and weight to their views. But for my part I frequently disagree with the bishops, and I have disagreed from time to time with the Synod. Therefore, I do not take the point that because the Synod and the bishops say that it is right, ergo—it must be right. We must make our own decision, here, in this place.
The arguments that the measure is good for the Church are arguments, first of expediency and, secondly, of principle. One of the arguments of expediency is that the old-fashioned language of the existing Prayer Book drives young people away. I believe that summarises the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), whose views on this subject I respect, used the word "alienation". He said that the present language alienates the young, and possibly he may be right. The corollary is that a new form of words would bring them back. I simply do not believe it.
There are many reasons why our young people—indeed, our people as a whole— have turned away from the Church. This is not the occasion to go into all these reasons or the secular changes in our society that have led to a falling away in church attendances. But the bishops are a little naive if they suppose that the major reason for the turning away from church is simply that the language is not right. That is an insufficient argument in favour of the measure.
I know of no evidence that the revised language that has been introduced in respect of the Bible and other usages of


the Church, has brought people back to the Church. On the contrary, my experience has been that the revised language being used in many churches has done nothing to stem the movement of the young away from the Church, but has led to the retreat of many old people from the Church. Therefore, on the argument of language the expediency case does not stand up.
There is, however, the other argument of expediency, namely, that if we do not pass the measure tonight there will be a hard-to-resist push for disestablishment. I say, both to supporters and to opponents of the measure, that this kind of—dare I say—blackmail of the House of Commons does not come well from the Synod of the Church of England. There can be no threat to this House that in the event that we made a decision not to pass the measure we should then be sorry because the Church would push for disestablishment. On the contrary. There may indeed be a case for disestablishment. But I would have respected the Synod much more if it had come to us with a straightforward case for disestablishment which involved what the Synod calls freedom—but freedom not only in doctrine but to give up what, I hope it will forgive me, I call the perks of establishment. It should ask not to remain established as far as the secular advantages of establishment are concerned, but to become disestablished as far as ritual and doctrine is concerned. I am not persuaded on the arguments of expediency.
There is, however, the argument of principle. The Church wants to be free. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know, "freedom" in relation to religion is a big word and can mean different things to different people. Two questions come to my mind as I examine this claim. First, freedom from what? What is it that the Church wants to be free from? The only conclusion that I can make is that it wants to be free from Parliament. No one can be entirely free from Parliament. Parliament has its limits, but it is the only source of lawful authority in this country, and the argument that the Church wishes to be free of Parliament is simply a non-argument. No one is free from Parliament. Indeed, in my view, Parliament guarantees freedom.
Secondly, freedom to do what? To put it in the vernacular, the Church wants to be free to run its own ship. But it is a ship which, to a great extent, Parliament pays for and provisions, and it cannot be right to say that it should be free to run its ship but at the same time to pay no respect to the fact that Parliament provisions it.

Mr. John Weils: I am listening closely and sympathetically to my hon. Friend's argument. Will he expand on his statement that Parliament largely pays for the ship? That does not seem to me strictly accurate.

Mr. Griffiths: I was aware as I used the phrase that I might be asked that question.
One advantage which arises from establishment is the right of the bishops to sit in another place. That is a significant advantage, giving the Church secular power over the citizen. The Church, by definition, is also a charity and, therefore, is relieved of taxation on much of its activity. [An HON. MEMBER: "All charities are."] But the status of the Church as a charity derives not from a decision of this place but from the assumption that because it is the Church —any Church—it is therefore automatically a charity. It is in that sense that Parliament to some extent provisions the ship.
I must confess that, having considered the evidence, I am not clear in my mind whether the measure is good for the Church. The bishops say that it is. I am not so sure. I leave the matter open.
But is the measure good for Parliament? It can seldom be good for Parliament to abandon responsibilities, to a great extent irrevocably, for any of the major institutions of this country. We live in a time when most kinds of authority are at risk, when our institutions are under test, the law defied and the courts resisted. I am not sure that in the next 10 years we shall not see changes in the way in which our country is governed which will make it very different from what it is. Against that background, I doubt whether it can be wise for Parliament to abandon a large


measure of responsibility for one of our major institutions.
But it has been said eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and others that matters of doctrine are not the business of Parliament—to put it simply, that Parliament, which consists of people from many Churches and from no Church, simply does not know enough about it. Now I often feel a sense of personal inadequacy about the measures we undertake in this House. Very few of us are doctors, but that has not prevented us from dealing with health matters. Very few of us are farmers, but we do not hesitate to take our stand on agriculture. It may be maintained by some of my hon. Friends that this is a different matter, that this is a matter of morality and that morality is different from the many other matters with which Parliament feels entitled to deal, although it does not have the necessary background knowledge.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: We do not tell the surgeon how to perform his operations or the farmer what to do on his farm, Are the examples which the hon. Gentleman has given analogous to this debate?

Mr. Griffiths: One of the matters which divide right hon. and hon. Members opposite from the Opposition is the view held on the benches opposite that Parliament should not only create the context within which farmers, doctors and others operate but should presume, frequently without knowledge, to state in intimate detail precisely how they should do it.
It is argued by my hon. Friends that Parliament should remove itself from consideration of Church matters as opposed to matters of agriculture, industry and health because they take us into the difficult, delicate world of morality. But again and again this House deals with, for example, the propriety or otherwise of homosexuality between consenting adults, the pill and the age to which parents should have responsibility for their children. We are rarely inhibited by questions of morality from taking our stand on major issues.
I therefore cannot accept the notion that Parliament should remove itself from consideration of the doctrine and worship of the Church of England

because it is a matter of morals. Either Parliament is omnicompetent or it is not, and as presently constituted it had better remain that way.

Mr. Pattie: I was speaking not of morals but of faith and deep theological beliefs. That is a different matter.

Mr. Griffiths: On many occasions when we have dealt in the House with questions affecting sexual practices and parenthood, many of us, including, I am sure, my hon. Friend, have been touched deeply by questions of morality and faith. Indeed, these matters are inseparable. I hope that as a churchman himself my hon. Friend will not maintain that there is a divide between the judgment of a man on expediency and on morality. These matters are inextricably intertwined.
When I ask myself whether this measure is good for the nation, I come to one simple conclusion—that there is an inextricable connection between Church and State, between Church and Parliament in England. Perhaps it were better not so, but it is so in law, in fact, by tradition and in the character of our nation. This inextricable interconnection between Church and State is to be seen in the Monarchy, in the courts and the practice of law, in our Oath of Office and in our everyday conduct as citizens of this country.
At the risk of offending those who have most carefully, deeply and, I do not doubt, prayerfully considered this measure in Synod, I cannot escape the feeling that here is an example of the leaders of the Church wanting to eat their cake and at the same time have it. They seek to remove from Parliament the control of their doctrine, to disestablish themselves in practice with regard to the Prayer Book, but nevertheless to retain all the secular advantages which establishment confers on them. For this reason more than any other, the discrepancy between their wish to seek freedom, as they put it, in doctrine and their wish to retain the advantages of establishment in practice, I shall join my hon. Friends who will vote reluctantly to deny this measure to the Church.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: One point has been made clear to me, and that is that should I eventually, by


the grace of God, arrive in the Kingdom of Heaven, I shall find a large number of my colleagues sitting well to the front of me.
Like Winston Churchill, I can claim only to be a flying buttress of the Church. But even in that humble capacity, and as a Member of Parliament, I should like to give my support to this measure.
In moving the measure in another place, the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was
a chance for a partnership between the Church and the State in which the rôle of each will be better expressed and more effective."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 874.]
I am convinced that that is the object of the measure and that it can be achieved. It is the chance to set up a partnership rather than to have a sudden jerk towards disestablishment, as has been suggested, mainly outside the House.
Unfortunately, this Church measure, which is the most important for many years, has had alarmist constructions put upon it. I suggest that the Book of Common Prayer Action Group is misinformed and has misrepresented the measure. For example, we are told that the Church has not been consulted. In my diocese the whole question has been discussed at deanery and parish levels. The Rochester Diocesan Synod voted in favour of the measure, as proposed in the Chadwick Report on Church and State, by 138 to nil. The Rochester Synod also voted by 109 votes to 18 in favour of the more radical proposal to give the General Synod permanent powers to order forms of worship of the Church of England without further reference to Parliament. I remind my colleagues that we are debating the least radical of the proposals placed before the Synod. The measure gives the Church of England the freedom it wants, and the desire for it has been expressed constitutionally and democratically. The mind of the Church of England has been expressed clearly, and the minority has been treated generously.
In recent months there has been a striking increase in the number of young men entering the Church. The rejection of the measure which was called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St.

Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) would be deeply disturbing to many young people who are closely connected with the Church of England.
I shall not go into details and arguments about the Prayer Book, but I should like briefly to quote from a letter sent to me by a constituent who is a leading churchman in the area. He writes:
Whereas a number of people, including myself, love and treasure the language of the 1662 Prayer Book and wish it to remain the standard of doctrine for the Church, we must not close our eyes to the fact that a more modern and contemporary form of worship must be available to the congregations throughout the country. I am sure that Parliament does not wish to be concerned with the minute details of every new service that comes before the General Synod.
I support those sentiments. It is right that Parliament should not be concerned with the minute details, it is right that the Church should have greater freedom to organise its affairs, it is right that all services in the Church of England should not be identical and, above all, it is right that the spirit of Christian unity in our islands should be advanced by the measure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Wiggin.

Mr. Crawshaw: Mr. Crawshaw rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is the third occasion on which I have not called the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), and I am sorry. This is non-party business. I shall be calling the hon. Gentleman if he is patient.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I take part in the debate not as regular a churchgoer as I should be but as one who throughout his life has been a member of the Church of England. I have in the past been secretary and treasurer of my parochial church council, and I am frequently disturbed by many things that happen in the church. I cannot express my feelings better than did Lord Waldegrave in a remarkable debate in the other place. He said:
I doubt whether all the experts and the clergy always realise how great is the distress and sense of shock suffered by members of congregations when they are faced by some of the more extreme innovations of form and language in the services. My Lords, it is difficult in the parochial church council, in the Deanery Synod or in the Diocesan Synod for


the laymen, chaperoned as they always are by their own incumbents, to say how greatly they dislike some of these changes. For them there is a great temptation to vote with their feet and keep away, not only from the PCC and the Synods, but from the Church itself."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th November 1974; Vol. 352, c. 880.]
The noble Lord went on to ask some questions. I shall paraphrase one or two of them and ask one of my own.
First, is there an adequate safeguard for the Book of Common Prayer and the general doctrine of our faith? Secondly, does the average churchgoer truly understand what is happening this evening? Thirdly, and perhaps most important, should we be debating the matter at all, or should we be dealing with the much more fundamental issue of disestablishment?
Many hon. Members said how much they liked the 1662 service, but I do not think that I have ever heard the full 1662 service in a parish church. Its sheer length would deter many people. What we have had is an amalgam of the 1662 service, innovations from the 1928 service and a few passages that do not appear in any approved service. How many hon. Members can say that they have heard the Ten Commandments recited in full during a Communion service in their parish church in the last few years? That is a requirement of the 1662 service, yet few incumbents ever read out the most simple and easily understood instructions ever written.
A church service requires to be dramatic, traditional and, as far as possible, unchanging, so that those who subscribe to the faith can look upon the liturgy as an anchor in their lives in times of greatly increasing tumult. We should not tonight be debating the merits of the new service. The measure merely entitles the Synod, with the safeguards of which we are aware, to make alterations. Perhaps Parliament would prefer the Synod to have brought the new service to us for approval, as occurred in 1928. That is the logical answer to those who say that Series 3 will be the last and there will be no more changes for some time. On the question of timing, I am not sure that we are dealing with the measure from the right point of view.
The Bible does not enter into this. It is dealt with in a separate measure which

has already been passed by the House. Authority to read different versions of the Bible has already been given to the Church. I find it off-putting that a Bible that was designed only for interpretation and private study should be read aloud in church. It can be said in favour of the new services that considerable thought has been given to the fact that they should be dramatic, that they should be heard aloud and should have feeling. I am sorry that, despite criticism to the contrary, no Church authority thought fit to place a copy of Series 3 in the Library of the House. Unfortunately, as I do not have a copy, I have been unable to study it.
The measure will allow the Synod to make further alterations. There are gigantic safeguards and most of us who have dealt with political problems will accept, I am sure, that the democratic process that will have to be gone through before further alterations are made will deter even the most ardent reformer. Nevertheless, there will be pressure, whether in five, 10, 15 or 20 years, to make further changes. I do not believe that those who are in favour of this measure can say that this is a freezing situation and that no further changes will be made. If people say that, I must return to the question of timing.
The 1965 measure allowed experimental services until 1980. I do not see why we should have to consider this matter in 1974. Why not in 1978 or 1979? There can be no harm in carrying on with the experiment if that is what people wish. If that is not what people wish —and we are told that the Synod does not wish it—surely they can manage for the next four years and give the average churchgoer greater time to consider the form of service that he or she wants.
A famous American politician said that he knew he would win the election with which he was concerned when his enemies turned their backs on their supporters and tried to buy votes from the floating undecided people. Surely it is a problem that many of us experience within our own political parties. It is vital to keep our basic supporters happy. That is something that the Church has ignored at its extreme peril. Empty churches are not of themselves due to the language that is used in the services,


but more to the length of the sermons and the views contained in them. If the Church alienates its traditional supporters on the ground of wishing to be "with it", I do not think that it can then turn to us and say, "We need this measure because without it we shall not be able to survive and to gather in people from the new housing estates, and so on." I do not believe that in those housing estates and in the ministry of the Church in modern society it is the form of service that does or does not fill the churches.
My second question related to the understanding of the average churchgoer to this matter. Despite the explanations of how the Synod is elected, I, too, find it a distant body. It is perhaps preferable to its predecessor, the Diocesan Conference, but I suspect that had I been a Member of this House when the previous measure came before it I would have been critical of the way that synodical government was set up.
I accept that it is possible to debate within a parish the kind of service that should be used. Perhaps I have been unfortunate. In every parochial church council on which I have sat the vicar has chosen to take the chair. In that position he wields great power, particularly over many of his parishioners who perhaps are not so intellectually wellequipped and theologically prepared to argue for religious changes in the church service.
I have a letter from a constituent, a consultant physician, who writes:
The measure would remove Parliament's final veto on changes in the doctrine and worship, and with it would go the only remaining check on the bizarre and wearisome determination of Synod to alter the whole nature of the Church of England without reference to the people.
At present all Parliament can do is to say to the Church, 'Be reasonable, think again.' Is this really such an intolerable yoke on the neck of the Church? The people gave Parliament this veto. We earnestly hope you will not surrender it. Please oppose the measure.
That I propose to do.
That the Synod voted by a large majority seems scarcely surprising. If a body is asked the question, "Should we have greater power", the chances are that it will vote in favour by a handsome majority. Therefore, I do not take much

note of the arguments either way, except, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, "Laymen will take notice of the views of both the bishops and the Synod, but equally we have the right to disagree with them."
I hope that we may have more time to consider this extremely difficult matter. Is a period of two or three years such a long time in the history of the Prayer Book and our liturgy? It seems but a passing moment.
On disestablishment and whether we should be debating this matter, I entirely support my hon. Friends who made it clear that they see this measure as a step towards disestablishment. Indeed, far from the Synod threatening this House, surely it is gradually trying to take to itself powers which at the moment Parliament holds and at the same time to keep the advantages of establishment, small as they may be, in a somewhat underhand manner. I should like the Church of England to remain as the established Church of this country. If, however, in a modern context it does not wish to be established, it should say so, and allow us to debate the merits or otherwise. I am sure that in the more free-thinking atmosphere of today there would be a majority for disestablishment in this House were the Synod and the bishops to ask for it. However, it seems that they are having it both ways on this occasion.
I am sorry that it was necessary to debate this matter in the other place on what must have been an emotive day for that Chamber. It was for that reason that those who did not agree with the measure were reluctant to put it to a vote.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on his maiden speech in his capacity as Second Church Commissioner, but I hope that we shall not be nervous about expressing our views tonight and questioning him on this measure. The view that a successful vote against this measure will harm Church-Parliament relations does not deter me from voting against it. I wish to strengthen relations between Parliament and churchgoers.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: First, I should like to apologise for not having been present for the whole of this debate. I was required elsewhere.


I plead in mitigation that I indicated that I did not wish to be called before the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who had been waiting to speak in the debate. I think that was the reason why you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not call me earlier.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman), who made his maiden speech a short time ago. Although he is not present, I should like to say that if we could introduce a little more of the humour that he displayed today into our church services, the churches would not be so empty today.
I have always been interested in Church matters. I do not put myself forward as a great Christian, but I do attend church. In the humble capacity of sidesman I think that I am associated with my local church to a fair extent. I also bask in the reflected glory that my wife has been a church warden for many years.
I appreciate that this subject arouses deep emotions. I hope that hon. Members will accept that I do not wish to criticise any views contrary to my own. I realise that they are deeply held, and I respect them.
I was a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee that dealt with this measure in another place. I supported it there and I intend to support it here.
There has been a lot of cross-talking about this measure which does not get down to the root of the problem. The suggestion by some is that they go for disestablishment by a thin end of the wedge. Yet others who oppose this measure say that the clergy are being two-faced, that they cannot have it both ways, indicating that they want to stay established and yet have this measure. Let us get it right. The Church is either trying for disestablishment or it is not. You cannot have the argument both ways.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) felt that the Church was involving itself too much in politics. As an ex-theological student, I have long felt that the reason for the empty churches was that the Church was not sufficiently involved in community affairs, to the extent that people felt it had no connection with conditions under which they lived. The more involved the Church is the more chance there is that congregations will increase.
I support the measure, but as one who misses the language of the old Prayer Book. But I and some others are getting a little long in the tooth and the Church will have to be carried on by others in the near future.
I believe that new forms of service will assist. Since Parliament defeated the 1928 Prayer Book, how many vicars have complied with the law about church services? Very few. They have had forms of service and prayer for which there is no legal justification. Do we want to have the Church stagnate, to be incapable of providing services to suit various occasions? This is only a small measure, but an important one.
The criticism has been made that the three Houses which passed this measure are not representative. Many of us may not be representative of some of those whom we are supposed to represent. But how else to decide? Is it suggested that the Church selects these people in an undemocratic way? I bemoan the fact that the average person is apathetic, but if people do not wish to take part, they have only themselves to blame if decisions are taken of which they do not approve. Apathy is a feature of many of our affairs, including trade union affairs. But why should we assume that we are democratically elected to take national decisions while the Church assemblies instituted for these purposes are not? I believe they are.
I have a vested interest in an established Church since I should like to feel that the State has associations with the Church.

Mr. Powell: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means by an established Church?

Mr. Crawshaw: I mean an established Church under the constitution as it is at the moment, under which the Church has to come forward——

Mr. Powell: In that case, this is a measure of disestablishment.

Mr. Crawshaw: If one wants to put it in those terms——

Mr. Powell: It must be.

Mr. Crawshaw: It is a step in the direction of disestablishment, I agree. It must be so, if more power is given to a certain body.

Mr. Powell: Then vote against it.

Mr. Crawshaw: I qualified that by saying that I should like to feel that this State is associated with the Church and is a Christian State. But one cannot assume that today. Ultimately, the Church will become disestablished. Whether that will be better or worse for the Church, I do not know. But it is not enough simply to say that the clergy are not honest in proposing this measure, that it is a step towards disestablishment, and in the next breath say that they cannot have it both ways. I should like to feel that the Church means something to this House.
What perks is the Church supposed to get from establishment? The Queen is the Head of the Church, but we hear a lot about financial support, and that does not exist. I believe that the opposition is not based on the feeling that these requirements are not necessary: it is a dog-in-the-manger attitude. That attitude was certainly shown by some hon. Members who opposed it on the Committee. They wanted to provide that the vicar should have laid-down services, with no latitude. Is that the sort of Church we want, with every word written down? Hon. Members may smile, but from 1928 until the previous measure was allowed the Church was acting unlawfully in many respects. Do we want it to be in that position?
This is not necessarily a step towards disestablishment. It might stop that movement. I intend to vote for the measure. Nothing in it bears out what has been said, that we shall be forbidden to use the Prayer Book, for instance. I have said that I prefer the former service, but we are dealing with a new generation. Changing the forms of service, however, will not fill the churches. It is the attitude that the Church takes to things outside which will do that, and not the doctrine.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I follow with great pleasure the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who is well-known as a churchman but always manages to reveal something fresh and intriguing about his personal background. His walking exploits are well known to us, and we have learned this evening that he

is an ex-theological student. That adds to the lustre of his reputation.
I found particularly sympathetic the note that the hon. Member struck about establishment. I noted the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about what establishment is. I should be content to give a legalistic and at the same time intuitive definition. The legalistic definition would be that contained in the Church and State Commission's Report on these matters:
For us, establishment means the laws which apply to the Church of England and not to other Churches.
That is a useful summary, which I would carry further. To me, establishment is the link between the Church community in the country and the civil community, which has been such a vital part historically in defending and upholding the integrity of the Christian gospel. This, after all, is the root of what we are concerned with—the integrity of the Christian gospel in the sense that we in the Church of England, Protestant and Reformed, understand that Christian gospel to be.
It was only because of the existence of the civil princes, in the case of Luther— who had recourse to their shelter and protection—and the civil princes in this country following the Reformation that the integrity of the Christian gospel, so vital and precious to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all of us who profess and call ourselves Christians, that the integrity of this gospel has been maintained.
I start with an enormous presumption in favour of the notion that if possible there should be laws which apply to the Church of England and not to other churches—to give a legal connotation of disestablishment—and, more broadly, that we should somehow maintain a real effective link between the civil authorities and the Protestant Church of England in this country following the pattern of the Reformation and of Luther. One thing which I have noted with some concern—this is why I will support the measure—is that there has been a noticeable secular trend in the direction of loosening the ties between the civil power and the Christian Church, particularly the Church of England.
This is first because the vital political power relationship between the Church of England doctrine and the civil authorities which was a feature of the clash between the civil power in this country and the Papacy has now evaporated as a factor which concerns the civil power. To that extent the civil power has progressively become less and less interested in the doctrine and beliefs of the Christian Church at large and the Church of England in particular.
Increasingly down the centuries, up to the present time, the civil authorities, specifically this House, have become less and less interested in what the doctrine of the Church of England is. It was vital at the time of the Reformation and the clash with the Papacy. It is increasingly irrelevant to the interests of the civil powers and to most people in this country concerned with civil and secular matters today.
That is a drift from the notion of establishment on the civil side. But the drift from attaching importance to a link between the civil authorities and the Church has also come on the Church side. The Church of England has felt an impulse to drift away from strong links with the civil powers for reasons concerned, for example, today, with its great preoccupation, meritorious and laudable, with the idea of Christian unity. This is very much a proper and Christian preoccupation in the 20th century, with the diminishing body of Christians in the world at large and the need to present a unified testimony.
The more we move in the direction of unity, so many Anglicans have found, the more the civil link has been an inhibition. The trend away from attaching importance to the civil-Church link has thus been a common feature of the civil body and the Church of England simultaneously. The proof of the pudding is the fiasco of 1928 when, because the civil authority did not move in the direction the Anglican Church wanted, in effect, rightly or wrongly, the Anglican Church took the law into its own hands and a great many of its members behaved as they thought they conscientiously should in matters of worship and doctrine as deployed and reflected in the Book of 1928.
The significant factor is that Parliament did nothing about it. It was not interested. It entirely accepted and took an appeasing attitude towards this de facto breach in the link between the civil body and the Anglican Church in a fundamental matter of worship and doctrine. It was a specific example of this drift away from attaching importance to the civil-Anglican link which I have described. I believe that, paradoxically, this measure is a reversal of this trend. In a paradoxical way it represents an under-pinning, a reassertion, of the significance and importance of the link between the civil authorities and the Anglican Church.
On the basis of what the Church of England was able to get away with from 1928 to 1965 it might have been thought that a far more radical measure of independence and self-determination would have been brought forward. It might have been thought that the Church would have sought to achieve recognition de jure of an almost completely acceptable de facto freedom to do what it wants, which is what happened following 1928. It has done the opposite. It has come to this House with a measure which in a sense pins it down to something much more akin to the veto that the civil authorities imposed upon Church doctrine in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries than was ever the case between 1928 and 1965.
Consider, in this context, above all the entrenchment provisions for the 1662 Prayer Book and the implied entrenchment provisions for the doctrine of the Church of England, Protestant and Reformed, as manifested, above all, in the 39 Articles in the entrenched Prayer Book. To have made itself legally bound to recognise and maintain these fundamental formularies is an immensely significant act of recognition and commitment to the oversight of the civil authorities in a fundamental matter of faith and worship. This is a genuine strengthening of the notion of the relevance and right of the civil powers to take a profound interest and concern in what the Church of England does.
A further indication of the sensitivity of the Synod to the need to recognise and upgrade and magnify the right


of the civil power—this House—to show concern in, have authority in, and exert some leverage in, the Anglican Church, is the fact that the Synod thought that it was wrong to bring forward in the context of this measure, perhaps in any form at all, anything in the nature of a reform in the practice of civil appointment of bishops.
The Synod looked at the possibility of this in the light of the "Church and State" report and decided, rightly and wisely, that it should not bring such a proposal before the House—that it was far too fundamental a breach of the principle of establishment. I am immensely encouraged in my belief that the Synod wants to sustain and recognise the power of the civil authorities over the Church of England in that it has not brought forward a measure which in any way tries to usurp the function of the civil power to appoint bishops, obviously in consultation.
Reference has been made in the context of what the Church is seeking to do in this limited area to the use of language, modern forms of words and so on. I find it profoundly paradoxical and ironic that one of the first and greatest blessings of the Reformation, of the power Luther achieved through the use of civil support, was the arrival for the ordinary people of the Scriptures and prayers in what at that time was called the vulgar tongue.
It is ironic that today the very people who most profess to be championing the inheritance of the Reformation should at the same time be so anxious to maintain what a wit once called, referring to the Authorised Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, "the Latin of Protestantism"— which is this archaic language, beautiful, beguiling, but, alas, blurred and in some way imprecise in its impact and meaning. It was not so blurred and unclear when it was the vulgar tongue of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
It is right that a modern generation of people, claiming to be in the tradition of Luther and the Reformation, should seek to place before the common people today the Scriptures and the Prayer Book in the vulgar tongue of today—the common, easily understood, immediately discernible language of our contemporaries.

The fact that we maintain 1662 absolutely entrenched is a safeguard, and shows a proper respect for tradition. An attempt to present these ideas in forms which can be understood and appreciated by our contemporaries is in the proper tradition of the Reformation and springs from those changes which were occasioned by Luther's use of protection by the civil power.
This House has already made a number of radical moves in the direction in which this measure is moving. I remind the House of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 which accepted the view of the Church authorities that the final court of appeal on questions of doctrine and worship should be changed from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which some churchmen objected as being a State court, to a new final court decided upon by the Church authorities. So much for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) about the usurping of matters of doctrine. This has already been usurped, if that is the right word, nearly nine years ago and I submit with no really ill effect.
A number of other steps have been taken, not least the Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure, 1965 which was accepted without a Division, and the Synodical Government Measure, 1969. None of these is dangerous from the point of view of the maintenance of a vital link between the Church and the civil power, but they are a precedent for a continuation of the trend.
I believe that if we accept this measure we shall not damage the vital relationship—the vital power relationship—be tween the civil authority and the Church of England, but that in an age when the drift is away from that link, paradoxically we shall underpin and support it. For that reason, I support the measure.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: It is with a feeling of considerable humility, as an imperfect member of the Church of England, that I intervene in this debate. My wife is a member of a parochial church council and we are fairly regular attenders of the church, though not so regular as we ought to be. I had the advantage of being educated at one of the great Church schools of our country,


part of the Woodard Foundation. This obviously made a very great impact on my early life.
I regret that this measure, because of past decisions, will have no Committee or Report stages. It is, indeed, a great shame that the General Synod will not have the advantage of our views and opinions before finalising the measure. However, we have to face the fact that tonight we have to make a straight decision whether to vote for or against this measure. I shall not in any circumstances vote for it. I am not sure at this point whether I shall vote against it. I want to listen carefully to the speeches which have yet to be made.
Without doubt, I have some very serious misgivings about the measure. These have not in any way been stilled by the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. In paragraph 13, page 5, of the report, the Committee uses the following words:
In the opinion of the Committee the Measure is expedient.
I regard that as a most unfortunate phrase in the context of what we are being asked to do. It does not lead me to believe that sufficient thought and consideration have been given by the entire membership of the Church to this measure.

Mr. Cormack: I do not wish to detract from my hon. Friend's argument, but, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I would say that that is the traditional form of words.

Mr. Bowden: I accept my hon. Friend's correction. I would only say that I believe the time has come to change that form of words, because it can be very misleading to those who approach the subject on the basis of being imperfect members of the Church.
What worries me is that the General Synod and the general organisation of the Church are out of touch with the man in the pew. I regard myself as a reasonably typical man in the pew. I was not aware of the point which my hon. Friend has just made—I am now—but how many other men in the pew have any idea of the implications of that phrase?
I turn to the part of the measure dealing with the Book of Common Prayer. Without doubt, in one sense it is pro-

tected in a way in which it has not been protected in the past. What worries me is that the terms of this measure could lead to the almost total disuse of the Book of Common Prayer.
We had an effective speech from the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson), who is not now with us, who, I understand, was a curate. I am not sure whether he had a parish. I believe he did. Here is a man of very strong views, eloquent and fluent, but I suggest that for the highest possible motives he would dominate his PCC. It would be a very brave man on his PCC who would dare to stand up against him and challenge any views expressed by him. This must, therefore, mean that over a period of time, where the incumbent in any parish is a man of strong views and feelings, it would be difficult for the members of his PCC to resist his views, and if he does not want to use the Book of Common Prayer it will not be used in his church. It is in this area that I have my first major misgiving.
I turn now to the comments made by the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I congratulate him on the way in which he presented the case to the House, and on his appointment. I am sure that he would be the first to concede that he did not have an easy task. Clearly, he had to prepare himself at relatively short notice. He made a number of points and I made two interventions when he was good enough to give way. In one of those interventions he made the firm statement that there would be no question of a Series 4, 5 and 6. I asked him what guarantee this House had that there would be no such series, and he was unable to give me a satisfactory answer.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to what he called the historical accident in the sense of the Church being established. It may be historical, but it was certainly no accident. Historically there were many people in this country who for years fought for and obtained the full and complete establishment of the Church of England within our realm. Even when we talk about the rule of Parliament, we should not forget that we are not Parliament. There are two other very important parts of Parliament—their Lordships in another place and Her Majesty the Queen, the Defender of the Faith. We


must think long and hard about the long-term effects of this measure upon that position.
I turn to the present form of synodical government. As I understand it— although I would accept correction—the church congregation elects the parochial church council, the PCC then elects the members of the deanery synod who in their turn elect the members of the diocesan synod who then elect the General Synod.

Mr. Van Straubenzee: If I may correct my hon. Friend? It is the deanery synod who elect on up to the General Synod.

Mr. Bowden: I put in one synod too many, for which I apologise.
The fact remains, however, that the elected representatives of the General Synod are a long way away from the original catchment area. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) made great play about the election process and said that we were not fully elected. Surely that is not true. We come direct from our constituents and the members of the General Synod do not. They do not have constituents who can make direct representation to them and they need not listen carefully to what is said because there is the barrier of two other groups before them in the election process. Therefore I submit that it must be difficult for the General Synod as a group to have a clear understanding of what the average member of the Church is thinking and feeling.
I cannot support the measure. It must give great power to the General Synod, the members of which are too often out of touch with the ordinary members of the Church. Secondly, it will, in my view, endanger the future use of the Book of Common Prayer. Thirdly, I have no doubt that it must inevitably weaken the links between Church and State.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I shall intervene only briefly. When we come to consider the form and words of the service we must ensure that those words are unmistakably clear, and during the present experimental phase we are not getting that clarity. Even when this experimental phase ends we may not achieve it. My

right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) referred to the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthiaris. Another quotation he might pay heed to is:
if the trumpet give an uncertain sound".
Those words cannot be found in the new Bible because the point is covered there in a completely unrecognisable form.
I think people go to church because they like continuity and, as someone else said, because they like the certainties of the church service. It is very important to keep a certain mystery in these words. We do not want the service to be in Civil Service language, and I do not think the beauties which have been created by the 1662 book can be recreated by us. When people go to church they believe that in repeating the old words they have a link not only with past generations but with future generations who will also be repeating them in their turn.
One most important aspect of this whole question of the Church and its possible disestablishment or its control of worship and doctrine is that this country now needs moral leadership from the Church and that is what we are not getting. In this permissive, violent and Godless age that is one thing we expect the Church to give us, and in that context the measure we are discussing tonight is irrelevant.
Nothing will be lost if we wait until towards the end of the experimental period, which finishes in 1980, and reconsider the measure again in, say, 1978 or 1979, when the congregations will have had more time to appreciate what the change may mean for the future. Once a step of this kind is taken none of us here tonight can clearly say where it will lead. I shall, therefore, need some convincing tonight if I am to vote for the measure.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: My preference—and it is as much emotional as anything else—is for the 1662 Prayer Book. There is, however, an interesting paradox. At the end of the 1662 Prayer Book appear the Articles of Religion. Article XXIV says unambiguously
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church,


or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.
If it is an accepted proposition that language changes with the efflux of time, Article XXIV to me quite clearly means that if it is to be complied with the actual words employed in the ministration of the Sacraments and public prayer must alter, too. Not to do that is to ignore Article XXIV of the Articles of Religion enshrined in the 1662 Prayer Book.
My principal complaint of the measure——

Mr. Powell: Clearly, that article was designed to draw a distinction not between more and less recent English, between middle English and old English even, but between the use of Latin and the vulgar or English tongue. It was not directed, as it would appear in isolation to be, to the intelligibility of individual English words and phrases.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has for once misdirected himself on a point of interesting and relevant fact. The heading of Article XXIV is:
Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth.

Mr. Powell: Tongue.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The whole import of the heading and the article is that public prayer and the ministration of the Sacraments should not be carried out so that the people, who are the congregation, do not understand their import. That is the whole purpose. People may not understand their import because, for instance, they are in a different language or in archaic language. If Chaucerian English were used today in our religious services, many people would not understand it, although it is undeniably English.
The Cornish were defeated in the battle of Fenny Bridges. They rose against the 1552 Prayer Book because they did not understand it. They understood Latin and Cornish. What they did not understand, and some might say they still do not understand, was English.
The criterion is this: do the congregation understand the words used? If the reason they do not understand is that the words are several hundred years archaic, that is just as relevant a ground

as their being in a different language, in the sense of Cornish being different from English, or Latin being different from English.
That in no way deflects me from my enjoyment of the 1662 Prayer Book. But I recognise that if I am to impose my preferences on others who neither share them nor understand that to "administer justice indifferently" does not mean that it should be administered without care, which is what many people today would take it to mean, that is to negate the provisions of Article XXIV.
What I take particular exception to is the fact that two totally dissimilar purposes have been combined in one measure. The whole debate, which has lasted for some time, has been about the provisions of Clause 1. Clause 4 has been touched on, but there has been no debate about the provisions of Clause 2. As Parliament cannot amend Church measures but can only accept or reject them, it would have been much better if we had had two measures laid before us, one embodying the provisions of Clause 1 and the other embodying the provisions of Clause 2. Such subsequent clauses as are relevant could then be attached to them. It would have been better to proceed in that way, because the arguments for and against them are totally different.
As far as I am aware, the Church of England is the only Protestant Church in England whose congregations have no say in the selection of their minister, nor can they interdict his acceptance. In that regard, it is unlike the established Church of Scotland. It is not just a theoretical matter. It often happens that congregations would like a say in selection.
We are asked to transfer immense powers from Parliament to the Synod without the Church of England's having reformed the system of patronage whereby people, some of whom are not even residents in the British Isles, can appoint the incumbent to a living and the parishioners can do nothing about it. This nettle should have been grasped before the ecclesiastical bodies asked Parliament to transfer these immense powers.
The congregations have lost the tiny protection against abuse of that power that they had in the requirement of public assent to the official doctrine of the Church


of England. There has always been that tiny protection. Clause 2 provides that that protection can now be swept away effectively without Parliament having any right to deny it.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has been the first to dwell on the question of the machinery of democracy inside the Church. Is he suggesting that we should delay this measure unless and until the reforms that he has suggested have been made and are working? If he is not saying that, how does he suggest that the House can impose those reforms which he seeks to make?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I say exactly that, for the additional reason that it would expedite those reforms were we to refuse our assent tonight. I am not sure that if we assent to this measure those reforms will be brought about in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Heffer: For the Church.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman says "For the Church". The parishioners now have a degree of protection which we are asked today to take away from them. Under Clause 2 we are being asked to take away such protection as they have. This is not just a theoretical consideration. I have spoken to a church warden of a parish about this matter. The entire parochial church council went to see the bishop about the appointment of the next rector of their parish. They were not even invited to sit down. The bishop told them it was no concern of theirs who he appointed to be their priest.
At least they have this tiny protection in law. If the person appointed to the cure of their parish refused to give publicly the assent required by law, they could terminate his cure. That tiny protection yet exists, but it will be effectively swept away.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. Gentleman made a point concerning a case in his own area. Will he not agree that the case he mentioned is more the exception than the rule?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am entirely confident that it is more the exception

than the rule. Unfortunately, the practice of not consulting the parishioners is more widespread than hon. Members may realise, so that the parishioners have wished upon them an incumbent they do not want. There is nothing they can do about it. That has been, and remains, one of the factors which tend to empty churches.
This measure should be rejected. Those who promote Church measures could offer the House this measure substantially split into its two component parts. The first substantial part is contained in Clause 1 and all that goes with it. The second is contained in Clause 2 and all that goes with that. Some hon. Members may find Clause 1 and that which goes with it acceptable, and Clause 2 unacceptable. They could accept one measure, and reject the other.
I have often found myself at a great disadvantage from what is, in effect, the statutory instrument procedure where we cannot amend the words of anything of this kind: we can only accept it in toto, or reject it in toto. It is, therefore, particularly incumbent on those who send measures up to Parliament not to include within them dissimilar provisions of this kind. Individual parishes are entitled to maintain their tiny protection, which is substantially cut in Clause 2, until the system of patronage is reformed. That is why I shall vote against this Church measure.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that it is most unfortunate we cannot amend this measure, and that we have to accept it in its entirety or reject it. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) agrees with me in that. I am not sure how long this element of cross-party agreement will last.
I think that at least my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will agree that if politicians should not be preachers today they have debated matters of religious significance with a feeling and perception quite remarkable and which would make it most unfortunate if this House were never to have the opportunity to have similar debates in the future.
I find myself deeply troubled about this one. I speak not only as a churchwarden, who has certain responsibilities to a specific parish, but as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which has very little power to do anything other than to recognise and to deem expedient. I speak also, however, as the father of young children and who wants to see them brought up in a Church of England which still has as its essential basic liturgy the Book of Common Prayer.
I came to the House today having told my former bishop, who is now retired, that I felt inclined to support this measure. Having sat through the debate I am not at all sure that I shall do that when the vote is cast. It is right that hon. Members should listen to the arguments which are advanced, and there have been some formidable arguments advanced. I waver considerably after what I have heard.
My inclination to vote for the measure was simply because I wanted to avoid creating in our country another dimension of uncertainty and confusion, which is what would be created if the disestablishmant issue were brought to a head. I am a fundamental believer in the Establishment because it seems to me that a Christian country—and we are still officially a Christian country—ceases even to have that title if it has no established Church.
The arguments here have been formidable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Eraser) put it in a most eloquent and persuasive speech, any move to have the privilege without the responsibility should not be condoned in this House.
My other inclination to vote for the measure was based upon what I call a sense of reality. Most hon. Members did a little research before coming to this debate. With the aid of the Library I looked out the article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph in 1962 when the Prayer Book was celebrating its third centenary. I quote briefly from that article:
But where stands lawful authority? Common necessity has largely usurped it, so that there is no parish or cathedral church in England in which the letter of law on public worship is strictly observed, and scarcely a clergyman who does not contribute some element of individuality to the situation.
That we all know to be the case, whether it be the 1928 Book, which occasionally

is brought into play, or whether it be the incumbent who enjoys saying Compline, which I find extremely appealing.
The article went on:
None the less, the Book of Common Prayer is most truly held in honour not only in England where it has, in theory, the force of law behind it, but also throughout the world-wide Anglican communion comprising churchmen of every race and colour. It has moulded Christian thought and devotion for three centuries, to say nothing of the influence of its literary cadences on our language.
That is where the first of my misgivings sets in about supporting the measure.
One of the most moving speeches that I have heard in this House today was delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). He spoke from the heart and with tremendous feeling. I think that he spoke for millions of people, although he was much more articulate than they and much more able to translate into the moving phrase. Nevertheless, he spoke as millions feel. He was speaking as hundreds feel in my own parish—people who will be crowding into our parish church for midnight Communion three weeks from now.
This first of my misgivings is becoming stronger as the debate continues. It is a misgiving based on a deep feeling about the needs of the age in an official Christian country. We do so desperately need stability and continuity. We desperately need both the anchor and the beacon that the Book of Common Prayer provides.
There was a time when any Roman Catholic going into any Roman church almost anywhere—my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone reminded us of this—felt at home. That no longer is the case. It is not for me to pronounce upon the various liturgical experiments of the Roman Church, but it is depressing when I go to churches throughout the country to find that I no longer feel at home. We are confronted with a paper-backed liturgy that is often couched in the language of the bus queue and the supermarket, and people feel deeply about these matters.
When the New English Bible was first published there was a most brilliant criticism by T. S. Elliot. He referred to it as vulgar, trivial and pedantic. I believe that. It is a version of the Bible that can enrich our private study, but it


has little to contribute to public worship. If anyone has the misfortune to listen to the Gospel for Christmas Day read from the New English Bible rather than from the Authorised Version he will know what I mean. It is only necessary to quote the glorious phrase:
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
said the Preacher. In the New English Bible that becomes:
Emptiness, emptiness, all is empty says the Speaker.
It has a capital S.
The same approach is found in Series 3. One of the heartening features of this debate is that although support for this measure has been expressed, hon. Members have not spoken up for Series 3. The Series 3 Thanksgiving begins as follows:
The President says 'The Lord is here'.
I think of Blackpool and the party conferences. There is a dinginess which takes over from majesty and a clumsiness which takes over from mystery.
I believe that there is a real place for a special language for our religion. I believe that people often wish to lose themselves when they go into a church; that they wish to worship in a different environment and that they do not necessarily wish to speak to their Maker and to take part in an act of corporate worship using the same sort of language that they use in the bus queue or in the supermarket. We should be sacrificing something of inestimable worth if we allowed the Common Prayer Book and all that it stands for to be pushed into the background. There are very few Cranmers, and certainly this generation has not produced one.
If some of my hon. Friends suggest that the current vulgar tongue—how vulgar it can sometimes be—is responsible for arresting the decline in dwindling congregations, I would need greater evidence than they have produced before I could be sure that that is the case. One of the reasons for dwindling congregations is that so many of our churches have forsaken the traditional Matins and Evensong. One of the reasons for increasing congregations is that the incumbent has laid a stress on the family Communion. The congregation may well increase not because he is using Series 3 or series anything but because he is trying to bring

the family together. Some of the best attended family Communions that I have been privileged to go to have used the 1662 Book, or Series 2, which, for all its faults, still preserves a majesty of language which Series 3 does not even begin to approach.
All this talk of giving people what they want speaks to me of a sort of sloppy Christianity, a sort of second Welfare State of the realm. I thought that this was what came through in the very moving speech of a man who is uniquely qualified to make such a speech—the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemiston) —I am sorry that he is not present—who has been a clergyman. He gave what was to me an almost alien interpretation of the rôle of the Church in present society.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the fact that many hon. Members of the House who are of the Church of England are traditionalists who feel as deeply as he feels in relation to the traditions but cannot see any reason why this measure should not be supported. People will be supporting it on the same basis and with the same depth of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has expressed in relation to his attitude to the Church and to the Book of Common Prayer, and so on.

Mr. Cormack: I much respect the hon. Gentleman's point of view. We have often talked privately of these things, and I know that he holds the Book of Common Prayer in just as high regard as I do and feels just as deeply, but the fundamental difference between us arises from the fact that he does not believe in the established Church. I think I am right in saying that. Therefore, other things which mean much to me and to some of my hon. Friends do not mean much to him, as they do not to the hon. Member for Luton, East. The cry for disestablishment rang clear and true throughout his speech, and he made no bones about it.
As I recollect what has been said in the debate and as I look at the measure and what it would possibly bring to pass, I have doubts provoked about giving a total freedom to determine to the General Synod. It has been said that it is representative of the Church of England. I hesitate to criticise, but I do not think that many of the people who attend my church have the remotest idea of who


their synodical representative is. Further, I do not think that most of them have the remotest idea that this debate is taking place today or that these changes are being suggested.
I believe, therefore, that the most sensible outcome of today's deep and searching debate would be a postponement of ultimate decision. I would with reluctance go into the Lobby against the advice of my own former bishop, for whom I have the highest regard. I would with reluctance go into the Lobby against a measure that has been supported so overwhelmingly by the bishops. On the other hand, the Church is more than the bishops, more than the clergy, and more than the General Synod of the Church of England.
Bearing in mind that the experimental period is far from over it seems to me that little can be lost by saying, "Hold. Enough for the moment. Let us reflect. Let your Lordships consider what we in this place have said. Let the General Synod deliberate afresh about it just to see whether the safeguards are sufficient, and ponder a moment to see whether you have really taken true account of the feelings of the flock throughout the country".
I also say to them this. Do not be motivated by what I would call the stockade mentality. It was suggested as one of the reasons why we should support this measure that it was held to promote Church unity. There are many views about that. I happen to believe that one can have a unity of spirit without an organic unity. I believe that very strongly. What the Church needs today more than it has ever needed in the past, is a missionary mentality—to go out and to preach the Gospel. Whether it be a Methodist, an Anglican, a Congregationalist or a Roman Catholic preaching the Gospel, the Gospel is there to be preached for converts to be won and do not let us be diverted by what are essentially specious arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden) made a good point when he was questioning the Second Commissioner about the safeguards, the PPC and a powerful overbearing or a merely extremely personable, incumbent. All these things should be looked at anew in the light of the debate. I do not want to deprive the bishops or the

General Synod of their legitimate and proper rôle in determining these things.
I do not wish to be one of those who goes into the Lobby tonight to strike a note of discord in the relations between Church and State at a time when it is so important that those of us with these things at heart should march together. But let us pause and ponder. There has often been great virtue in that. I hope that after the debate there will not be forced a definitive vote and that there will be an opportunity for reflection and reconsideration.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I cannot emulate the flamboyant and colourful eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). It is not my intention to preach the gospel tonight. But I have strong feelings about this measure and I intend to express them in the debate.
In my opinion the Book of Common Prayer is a bastion of the established Church. I am a strong supporter of the established Church. The point may have been mentioned a number of times in the debate already, but perhaps the Book of Common Prayer is a spiritual birthright to which all people in this country are entitled. I believe it is. That is what it is to me.
We have heard a great deal about trendiness. It has had its way for far too long. I want to see a reaction—that is not a dirty word—and I believe that in the debate we have seen a reaction to the erosion of tradition and stability which is embodied in the Book of Common Prayer. The Book of Common Prayer is now under threat of gradual extinction, or at least under threat of being banished to some dusty bookshelf. The certainty of the form of service and the certainty of the words used in a service are vital, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my constituents who have written to me about this measure. I have received representations both personally and through the post not only from ordinary church-going constituents— men and women—but from members of parochial church councils, as well as from a number of vicars, who are deeply concerned about what will stem from this very radical spiritual and constitutional


change which we have been asked to approve this evening.
I find it extraordinary that the General Synod did not consult people in the parishes about this fundamental matter. I also find it extraordinary that the measure was not referred to all deanery synods and parochial church councils as a matter of form. I do not believe that the present system is really democratic within the Church. This point was reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). He wants to see a more democratic system within the Church, to allow people at the grass roots to express views on such important matters as the measure now before us.
There has been a serious breakdown in communication between the General Synod and the average church worshipper. I hope that this measure will not be passed and that those responsible for drawing it up will have second thoughts and will bring it back amended to this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) talked about the serious situation facing the world—in particular, this country—the lack of morality and perhaps the lack of leadership in politics and in the Church. The established Church should set as its target the provision of moral and spiritual leadership to this nation, which is wandering aimlessly in a wild and stormy sea. When it has provided that moral and spiritual leadership, it can perhaps present a measure such as this to the House. However, the colour, the mystery, the emotion, and the words of the 1662 Prayer Book are very dear to me and I do not wish them to be removed. Therefore, I intend to vote against the measure.

9.2 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I am confused. I have some sympathy with those who argue that the Church should have more power over its own affairs. I have a lot of sympathy with those who say that its message needs to be preached in more modern idiom and that it is likely to make a bigger impact if that is done. However, we should separate the evangelistic needs from the strongest elements of the practice of worship which have held good for so long.
The need to be able to translate the message in modern language is clear. I

should expect to hear that increasingly from the pulpit and from similar places, which plainly need not be restricted to churches. This is where modern language and modern interpretation of ancient truths and long-established doctrine need to be practised perhaps to much greater effect than has been achieved. I therefore separate the desire for modernising from the impact which that should have on the position in our worship of the Book of Common Prayer.
It has been said that the Book of Common Prayer will remain one of the standards of doctrine of the Church of England and, for this reason, those who are concerned lest it lose its special place in our worship can vote for this measure with a clear conscience. We are assured that it will remain a legal alternative. But it will so remain only until, by measure, it shall not be so.

Mr. Frank R. White: By this House.

Sir J. Eden: This is the point which causes me anxiety. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such a measure would require the affirmative support of Parliament. Therefore, I hope that we shall preserve the close relationship between Church and State which enables us to take part in discussions on such measures.
The Bishop of Durham said:
Nothing can surpass the Book of Common Prayer as the classic statement of what the Church of England is, but it belongs to its time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th November 1974; Vol. 854, c. 897.]
Its time surely is still with us, and I cannot feel that events during the past 20 or 30 years or so require us now to discard what has remained with us for so much longer than that. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who have argued that at a time when there is so much that is subject to change we should hold on to a form of worship which has so effectively stood the test of time.
In a leading article on 9th November The Times put it in words that struck a chord of sympathy with me. In fairness, unlike me, The Times leading article was arguing in favour of supporting the measure. It read as follows:
The zeal of liturgical reformers has to be admired, and deplored. They over-value the


place of contemporary idiom, plain statement, and relevance to secular concerns in the language and ceremonies of the liturgy; and they undervalue familiarity, consistency, antiquity, and the 'pious resonance' of traditional forms. They also set aside too lightly the devotion with which many who are habituated to the traditional liturgy of their church cherish what has been handed down to them. Not just for the sake of its authenticity, but as a sign that the things of the spirit outlast the hectic changes of the world.
As Lord Elton said in the debate:
In the middle of the storm it is not to the green sapling that we cling, but to seasoned timber."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 936.]
That summarises my approach and my feelings on the measure.
I know that many of those who support the measure feel equally strongly about the Book of Common Prayer and its special and unique place in Church of England practice and worship. But I fear that by voting for the measure we may be taking a step which would deliberately relegate its significance to a place lower in the practice of the Church than I would wish it to be.
I do not know the views of my constituents on the measure. I do not even know the views of my parochial church council. That is bad; I should know. It may be entirely my fault that I do not know, but it causes me to question how it is that a measure which has been the subject of debate in the Synod over such a long period and which has caused such controversy amongst those who were privileged to attend the various Houses of the Church Assembly should have escaped the attention of practising worshippers in the Church of England.
I regret that we have not had the opportunity, so often afforded to us in the House on matters of major significance, of a debate on a Green Paper or a White Paper or its equivalent before having to confront the measure itself. That would have been of value even to those in the Synod who have been considering these matters for so long. Naturally, I respect their views, but I do not accept that, in so far as they have been put in the debates, they have been fully representative of the feeling of the body of church worshippers.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: How many letters on this measure has my right hon. Friend received from his constituents?

Sir J. Eden: I am not aware that I have received any. That is the point that I am making. I have received letters, but I am not sure that I have had letters from constituents on this subject. Obviously I should have done. I should have made a point of finding out what Church leaders in my constituency thought about it. I am ashamed that I have not done so. I deeply regret having to stand here today and to bring myself to the point of having to vote one way or the other without having taken adequate soundings on a matter which deeply concerns many thousands of people in my constituency and elsewhere.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West. I hope that if this measure is to be passed tonight, at the very least those who have responsibility and the power of decision in these matters will endeavour to build safeguards into their procedures to ensure that in future proper soundings are taken amongst practising worshippers in the Church so that the voice of the people is truly heard.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is a difficult debate in which to take part. In almost all our debates, as we urge the arguments for our own points of view we are tolerably careless of any injury that we may inflict upon the feelings of hon. Members who take the opposite opinion. Indeed, we could sometimes be suspected of positively revelling in hurting one another's feelings. This is not one of those occasions.
Every hon. Member who contributes to this debate does so under the inhibition that he knows that the success and force of the arguments that he puts forward will to some extent injure aspirations and beliefs as strongly held by some of those whom he is addressing. Therefore, I seek the maximum common ground before the inevitable difference is approached.
The first common ground must be the decisive importance of this measure. After all, as the Leader of the House observed during business questions last


week, a measure which repeals the Acts of Uniformity can hardly be regarded as one Church measure amongst others that have come forward since the 1919 Act. It is a revolution in the constitution of the Church of England and, in so far as the Church of England is part of the history and constitution of our country, it is a political revolution in its own right which is represented by this measure.
It comes before us in circumstances of special difficulty. I believe that the experiment—it started as an experiment— of Church measures in 1919 has, on the whole, proved successful. It has made it possible to reconcile the necessity for modifications in the law of the Church of England with the retention of control over that law by Parliament and this House. Some measures have been relatively unimportant; others have been substantial. But never before in a single measure which has to be voted upon—at least, probably has to be voted upon— after a single sitting, a measure which decides the matter once and for all so far as Parliament is concerned, have we been asked to resolve so profound a question and make so decisive a change in the relationship between the Church of England and the State as represented by Parliament.
There are two questions which should be got out of the way at the outset. One relates to the proposition that this House is somehow committed by what has gone before to accept this measure. The other relates to the competence of this House generally in the subject matter of this measure.
On the first—as to whether this House is committed—perhaps I may trouble the House with two or three sentences from a letter which I received today from the right hon. prelate the Bishop of London, who is my own ordinary. I know that he would not mind my quoting it, because it puts forward a point of view which he clearly wished to be known not to me personally but as widely as possible.
Essentially".
said he,
the Measure makes permanent the experimental powers granted in the Alternative and Other Services Measure. These come to an end in 1980, and it is unthinkable that we could then go back to the pre-1965 situation, -with the liturgical chaos which existed at that

time and has, as a result of the 1965 Measure, been largely eliminated.
I wish to make two comments on that. First, this House was not told in 1965, when that measure was presented, "Beware—understand what it is that you are doing. If you accept this experimental measure you have morally committed yourselves, should the experiment prove successful, to relinquish powers in future over the liturgy and the doctrine of the Church of England."
It is quite unacceptable that this House, because it has permitted a deliberately delimited experiment to be conducted, should be told that thereby its judgment is pre-empted as to what is to happen thereafter and, incidentally, as has several times been observed, pre-empted long before the span of the experimental period which it permitted.
But the second point which emerges from the bishop's sentences is even more striking. There is no question of needing to go back to what is described as the pre-1965 situation and liturgical chaos. If the experiment has been a success, if it has resulted in forms of worship and formularies being evolved which, as a result of experiment, have shown themselves acceptable to the Church of England, the case is simple. All that is necessary is to present a measure to this House, to say to this House, "With the powers which you gave the Church, the experiment has been carried out and now we wish you to authorise the result of that experiment permanently by a measure which will give the force of law to the innovations thus examined, thus experimented with."
When the Bishop of Durham, as I understand, says that the Church of England is moving into a period of liturgical stability, still less is there any reason why that stability should not receive the authority which all the institutions of the Church of England have received and from the same source, namely, from this House. So we are uncommitted by what we have done and we do not, by rejecting this measure, refuse to confer upon the Church of England, the advantages which it anticipated from the measure of 1965.
As to our competence, that question always comes up in debates on Church measures. Though it has come up much less today than I think I


ever remember. It is often heard out-of-doors, particularly by those who think little about these matters, that it is absurd that this assembly should legislate upon the form of worship and the articles of belief of a Church—that an assembly of which probably not the majority, for all I know, are members of the Anglican Church, which comprises all faiths and none, should sit solemnly considering a matter of the belief and practice of a particular Church. This is a misconception. The House is not debating the form of worship in the Church of England. It is not debating the Articles of Faith and the formulae of assent of the Church of England. It would be absurd if we were attempting to do that in such a debate as this. Indeed, it was to prevent the necessity of that that the 1919 Act, which I believe has worked successfully, was placed on the statute book.
The question being debated today is very different. It is whether the worship and the faith of the Church of England should continue in future, as heretofore, to be regulated by the law of Parliament. That is the question before the House, whether the Church of England, its worship and its doctrine, should no longer be given the force of law by that which gives the force of law to the rest of the laws of this country—the action of this House as part of Parliament.
That is a question which concerns every hon. Member. He may or may not be a member of the Church of England. He may be a Roman Catholic—one of the most important contributions to this debate was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser)—he may be a Jew, a dissenter, an atheist. All Members alike have a responsibility for that which is decreed by the law of Parliament and for taking a decision on what should be within the sphere of the law of Parliament and what should not. They are all equally concerned if a great change is to be made in the boundaries of that sphere, especially when that change concerns what is on any view one of the most characteristic institutions of this country.
When I say "of this country" I do not mean only of England, although the Church of England is what it says: it is only "by law established" in England. As

long as we are one kingdom and as long as this is the Parliament of a united kingdom, the law of the Church of England and whether it ought to be part of the law of Parliament is a question which concerns all parts of the realm and not only England.

Mr. Alison: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Clause 4 of this measure and interpretation Clause 5 entrench as the law of the land—if the House passes this measure—a definition of the doctrine and formularies of the Church of England?

Mr. Powell: There is an important difference between this House delegating or transferring as far as may be irrecoverably, its legislative power and exercising it itself. We have, after all, lived through that debate, and are still living through it, in our discussions upon legislation by the European Community under the authority of a section of an Act of Parliament. Similarly, the effect of this Bill would be to secure that it was by canon and not the action of Parliament that future changes were made in the worship and formulae of the Church of England.
Of course limitations are placed by this measure. My hon. Friend is right. It is not a complete transfer of power. But, within the wide scope in which there is transfer, it substitutes legislation by canon for legislation by decision of this House.

Mr. Alison: I must press my right hon. Friend on this point because it is the crucial nub of the argument and he does not seem to have taken my point. Parliament will be legislating, if we pass this measure, to see that
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

Mr. Powell: I apologise to the House for being drawn rather earlier than I had intended into consideration of Clause 4. Clause 4 vests the judgment of what is or is not conformable to that doctrine in the Synod itself, and says that it will be assumed that such-and-such a change is conformable if the Synod makes it. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the House is not being invited to make an


unlimited transfer of legislative competence. It is placing some limitations— though they are frail indeed—upon legislation by canon, but in the central matters of worship and doctrine it is substituting legislation by canon—that is to say, non-parliamentary legislation—for legislation directly resolved upon by this House.
Having sought to clear the ground by establishing both the competence of this House and the fact that our decision is in no way prejudged by anything that has gone before, let me come to the question whether or not the law of the doctrine and worship of the Church of England—the subject which we are debating—ought to be part of the law of Parliament.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury —he has just ceased to be Archbishop— is quoted as having said in this context, "The Church should have the right to order its own worship". That statement seems to be treated as though it were a self-evident verity. It certainly is not so, historically. The history of the Christian Church does not bear out any such assertion. Such an assertion may be made as a claim, but it cannot be made as self-evident and confirmed by history and the nature of the Church.
The very formulae by which all Western Christianity is bound together, the liturgy and the belief of the Catholic Church in the ancient world, was not resolved upon by that Church in isolation from the secular power. It was the secular power which made that decree. The Nicene Creed, the central definition of our belief, was given its authority by imperial edict. It was by the emperor, and in a crucial case by an emperor who was not yet a Christian, that the force of law was given—and this continued to be so down the centuries until the end of the Roman Empire—to the resolutions of the councils of the Church, where the emperors presided in person, or were represented by their commissions, where they paid the expenses of those who attended, where they regulated the agenda and authorised the conclusions.
I assure the House that I do not put this argument as a half-serious one; I make it as a deeply-felt argument. The very catholicity of the Christian Church is the stamp which was placed upon it

by the imperial authority of ancient Rome in the fourth century. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, we can debate these matters. I have already had an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison); and I am going to pray in aid an expression which fell from him during his very interesting speech, where he recognised that the fruits of the Reformation itself, the rediscovery of pre-Constantine Christianity by Luther and the Reformation, have themselves been given an institutional form by the secular power—here, under the Tudors, and, as I think he also had in mind, in Germany. So it is nothing outlandish or unique to England, it is nothing strange to the whole history of Christianity that the law of the Church should be made by secular power.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is advancing what I think is a remarkably intelligent argument. He is historically correct, except—I hope he will agree with me—that the founders of the Christian religion founded it in opposition to the establishment of the day and that the founder actually died on the cross, put there by the established.

Mr. Powell: Of course, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is perfectly right that in its source and in its essence the faith is anti-establishment. In the end it rejects the State and all the works of the State. It rejects everything that is worldly. But we live with it in this world and we worship together in this world, and in so far as the Church of England is our Church, either nationally or as individuals, that Church has been given its characteristic stamp and quality by the fact that it is "by law established".
Here I offer my definition to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) following the earlier exchange between us. A Church, I submit, "by law established" is not a Church which is just referred to in the law and thus finds a place on the statute book, but of which, after that, no definition is given. The concept of such a Church can not be an empty one. In order for a Church to be established by law it must be a specific Church, with a specific belief, and specific forms of worship which correspond to that belief. Indisputably, to this day the Church of England has been such. It is the character of the Church


of England, probably unique in the world today, that it is such a Church. We are tonight deliberating whether on balance it is wise that it should continue for a space to remain so.
Those who formed the Prayer Books of 1549—with all its imperfections—and of 1552, and that of 1662, which was carefully and lovingly formed upon the basis of those Edwardian Prayer Books, aimed at what they called comprehension. They aimed at bringing together as far as possible within one formula and one liturgy men of as wide a range as possible of religious feeling and religious instinct. And they succeeded almost beyond belief. It was only a minority which on one side or the other failed to find some sort of a home within that embracing comprehensive formula. In sentence after sentence of the Elizabethan book, which is essentially the 1662 book, one can see how the formulation was designed to accommodate alternative interpretations of those aspects of our religion of which there can be no final interpretation or formulation.
So it succeeded in its initial purpose of being comprehensive. But this comprehensive nature of the Church of England did not desert it through the centuries. It was because the liturgy and the articles of religion, being part of the law of the land, were so difficult to alter, were so near as possible to being permanancies, that in age after age successive waves of thought and religious feeling were nevertheless able to find a place within the Church of England and within its unity. It could accommodate the deism and the philosophy of the eighteenth century. It could accommodate the piety of a Samuel Johnson. Within a few years after Dr. Johnson's death, it was discovered that the 1662 Prayer Book could accommodate both Simeon and Pusey, that with its aid the Church of England could discover that it had not lost the best heritage of the Catholic Church, and that it could at the same time be a Church of evangelism.
The Church was able to do this because all, in their respective endeavours, were bound within the law-made comprehensive formula. The necessity for that has not diminished. The trends and the forces which shook the Church in the last century have not become less violent in the present time, though of course, the sources of doubt, the causes of division, the pos-

sible variations of interpretation, are different. Anthropology, sociology, criticism, history, all the rest, like the theory of evolution a hundred years ago, have fed new stresses into the Church and into its faith. And still, because it has this deliberately rigid framework, men and women who, if their inmost hearts could be examined, would be found to have almost incompatibly diverse conceptions, can act and pray and worship and praise together within the Church of England.
The Church owes this, its comprehensive character, to the very fact that its formulae and its liturgy, being established by the law of Parliament, are peculiarly rigid and difficult of change. And now we are asked, deliberately, specifically to remove that rigidity and to substitute the utmost flexibility.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not, therefore, a matter for consolation that the measure will, if it is passed, enshrine in the law the proposition that the doctrine of the Church of England is to be found in future, as it has been in the past, in the Prayer Book?

Mr. Powell: Yes, but it is in the Prayer Book as understood by the General Synod, which is given the power to make canons which it regards in its conclusive judgment—"conclusively" is the word in Clause 4—as in conformity with the doctrine of the Church of England.
There is no dispute as to the purpose of the measure. It is to permit innovation to which no limits other than those in the measure are assigned. It is the nature of innovation that it will not stop. Hon. Members have asked in the debate, "We have Series 2, and Series 3. Why should there not be Series 4, 5 and 6?" The Bishop of Durham says that he cannot foresee them for the next few years. But if there have been Series 2 and Series 3 already, the body which could pass Series 3, for which there has not been a friend almost throughout the debate, will almost surely pass Series 4, 5 and 6, and will pass them all the faster now that it is positively invited to do so by the House passing a measure which removes the constraint of having to go specifically to Parliament for authority.
If it were only Series 2 and 3 for which the Church sought, side by side with the Prayer Book, the legality of the law of Parliament, there would be no problem.


This measure is before us because more, to an extent undefined, is desired and is intended.
It is of the nature of theological innovation that it is specially the prisoner of fashion. Great fashions sweep over the theological scene like storms across the sea. Fashion dominates what bishops say from their benches. Fashion dominates what preachers preach from their pulpits. Only so far, because it was entrenched by law, has fashion not been able to shake the permanence of our liturgy and the articles of our faith. It is the nature of theological fashion, like all fashion, to be an exclusive fashion: if one does not like it one can do the other thing; if one does not like it, if one will not conform with it, one becomes literally a nonconformist, and the comprehensiveness of the Church of England is sacrificed through the removal of what was the safeguard of its comprehensiveness.
Let no one say that we find somewhere within the interstices of this measure a reference to the 1662 Prayer Book. I ask hon. Members seriously to envisage the Church of England freed from the constraints of having to come back to this House for anything more than this measure. I ask them to consider how rare and even rarer would become the practical use of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer unless perchance that should be the theological, episcopal and clerical fashion in some year to come.
It will be fashion which will dominate the General Synod. I mean no disrespect to the General Synod. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) asked one of the key questions in this debate. The figures have been quoted of the overwhelming majority— overwhelming even by Northern Ireland standards—for this measure in the General Synod. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare pricked that balloon. He pointed out that the Synod had before it a measure to give it a lot more power and to diminish control over it. What body, presented with a proposal that it should be given more powers, that its wisdom should be trusted more implicitly, will not vote for it overwhelmingly? There is no significance at all in those votes.
That is no complaint against the General Synod. In a sense the General

Synod is representative. The Church of England has done its best, with the materials with which it could work in this context, sincerely and genuinely to make a representative assembly. But in the end they failed—they failed because of the nature of the Church of England. If the Church of England were not what it is —the national Church by law established —they could have made a very good job of it. If it were a congregational church, if it were a church which had split off so as to represent a specific point of view, the General Synod would be a very representative body and it would be right to say of it, "If that is what they want, that is as near an approximation to what the Church wants as it is possible to get."
That is not the Church of England. The Church of England knows nothing of the Synod, but it is still the Church of England. There are still to be considered those millions of men and women to whom it belongs—albeit occasionally —and there are still those in generations yet to come for whom the comprehensiveness of the Church of England will give a religious home, a home in the Church, which otherwise they would not find. The only representatives of that Church of England are those who created the Church of England by establishing it by law, namely, this House.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, because I am a Welsh Presbyterian and the Church of Wales is disestablished. But the right hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing more for the law than for the spirit. Is he aware that the Church in Wales, which is allied to the Church of England, has a revised Prayer Book and that the Church in Wales has been strengthened and enlivened by that revised Prayer Book?

Mr. Powell: I am aware to some extent of the way in which both in the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales the experiments and innovations in the Anglican Church in England have been followed, and I have no reason to doubt that in so far as they have advantages —I think that they have some—those advantages have been reaped elsewhere as well as in the Church of England. However, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right much earlier in the debate when he drew attention to the fact that it is what this House


does in regard to the Church of England which, in practice, very largely governs the fate, the future and the possibility of other parts of the Anglican Communion such as those which the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned.
This is one of the greatest possible decisions on which we have been asked to embark—whether we are to remove that rigidity and that stability which its establishment by law has given to the Church of England and to replace them by the freedom of unlimited innovation in the future which this measure portends.
When the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker)—whom I also congratulate —introduced the measure, he mentioned Church reunion and said that this measure would be helpful towards it. Alas, the hon. Gentleman understated the case. Much more than the obstacle of the 1662 Prayer Book stands, for the Anglican Church, in the way of complete union either with the Free Churches or with Rome. It must cease to be an established Church altogether, and the Queen must cease to be the supreme governor on earth of the Church of England, if the Church of England and the Church of Rome are to be one.
Today we have been debating no less a question than the establishment of the Church of England itself—to be, or not to be. I say—and I hope that in doing so I speak for many who would be inclined to favour this measure as well as for those who are resolutely opposed to it—that it is wrong that we should part with it in this way in one debate. I hope that we shall not.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: In, a historic debate of this kind, it is a great pleasure to be called immediately after the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has spoken. I cannot hope to match his historic and dogmatic sweep. However, he said that there are fashions in synods. So there are on parliamentary occasions. Perhaps I might also say that it is a great pleasure to hear the voice of high Anglicanism, if not of high Toryism, transplanted from Wolverhampton, South-West to Down, South and to note that it speaks with all the eloquence and force that it always had.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on the lucidity and moderation with which he moved the

motion. His speech will match and be recorded with that of Sir Boyd Merriman in 1928.
Tonight's is a historic debate, and it is one of the recurrent fascinations of this House that from generation to generation we return to themes which have agitated this House in the past. Of course, it is not curious that in an Erastian country we should at least once in a generation consider the relationship between Church and State. To some it is indefensible that Parliament, which is largely but not entirely secular in tone and composition, should debate these matters. I think we can say without presumption that possibly in our diversity and frailties we represent the laity perhaps more exactly than the Synod itself. In the eloquent words of the right hon. Member for Down, South we represent perhaps more exactly those to whom the Church of England occasionally belongs.
The Synod, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) observed in a perceptive and moving speech, is composed of activists. We may admire activists for their commitment, their energy and enthusiasm. We have occasion to observe those qualities in other areas but we may also observe that activities are occasionally tempted to take up extreme positions.
This measure has been projected to the House as modest. If it is not distasteful for me to recall the matter, so in a sense was the abortion Act. It enacted a small change in the law, but in so doing it altered the climate and the attitudes of those who were disposed to take advantage of facilities that had already been on offer. I doubt whether this is a modest measure. I believe it will alter the climate of opinion in these matters. I believe that it is profound and fundamental. We are being asked to surrender our control over worship and doctrine. If it is not a measure of total disestablishment, it is at least a measure of partial disestablishment. No one can define establishment with absolute precision, but in part it depends on the ultimate control of this House of various aspects of Church life.
There were pressures for disestablishment in 1928. Those of us who have taken the trouble to read the debates of 1928 will have heard strong echoes


tonight. I believe that the pressures will grow. I find them unattractive, and I would not be disposed to yield to them. If they would go so far as to dispossess Her Majesty the Queen, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day, of the right to appoint bishops I would have no part in such a matter of disestablishment.
It may be that my only qualification for intervening is that I am a member of an established and a disestablished Church of the Anglican Communion. When I am in Wales I am a member of the Church in Wales. When in England and representing an English constituency I am a member of the Church of England. Perhaps I have seen at first hand some of the disadvantages of disestablishment. With profound respect to those who grace the bench of the Church in Wales, I am not Persuaded that they are people of greater quality than their brethren of the Church of England although they are elected by the Church in Wales.
Despite its imperfections, I believe that the present system produces a bench of higher quality than any other system which we could devise. I believe that establishment is both good for our public institutions and for the Church itself.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) care to concede that his grandfather, a Baptist Minister in Anglesey, would have taken a contrary view to the one that he is expressing?

Mr. Rees: All of us have many diverse strains in our ancestry. I would not say that we have to accept the views which our ancestors might have held in quite different situations. I must form my judgment of this matter in the circumstances in which I find myself. What any of my paternal or maternal grandparents might have decided is of no consequence to me, profoundly though I may respect their particular views.
However, I pass on to my theme. I have had occasion in my lifetime to observe disestablishment in the Principality from which I hail. I cannot say that it has been an unqualified success. I do not believe that the Church in Wales shows the same vitality as it did before

Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor piloted a measure through the House for its disestablishment. I am sorry to take issue with the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). I know that he feels very strongly about his own antecedents—and the connections he may have with the Lloyd-George family, for all I know.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We agreed on religious matters even if we disagreed on political matters.

Mr. Rees: I doubt that whether the right hon. Gentleman and I would agree or disagree with that very distinguished parliamentarian has much significance in this debate.
I do not believe that disestablishment would advantage either the Church or the State. I believe that our public institutions have benefited from establishment, as has the Church itself. If we were to accelerate the trend towards disestablishment, our public institutions would drift further towards triviality and formlessness, and the Church itself would drift further towards introversion. Because of that, my position may appear paradoxical. I shall not vote against the measure, because I believe that if we do vote against it we shall increase the internal pressures in the Church of England towards disestablishment. Therefore, on that pragmatic basis—some hon. Members may think it almost dishonourable—I shall abstain tonight. I hope, however, that in the future when legislating on these matters, if it is capable of doing so, the Synod will recall this. There are many members of the Anglican Communion who perhaps do not follow Church affairs very closely, who do not appreciate liturgical and dogmatic niceties, who are not enthusiastic about Series 1, 2 or 3, who feel a deep, if unformulated affection and respect for the forms which they and their ancestors have observed and who want to be able to go to any church in the Anglican Communion and recognise and warm to uniform forms of worship and to prayers which are part of the literary inheritance of our race.
It is on their behalf that I hope that I may, without presumption, voice a disquiet on the passage of this measure, a disquiet of which I hope the Synod will take account if and when it is emancipated from the control of Parliament.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. and learned Friend should vote against the measure.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd: It is always difficult to speak immediately after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), but I would not seek to quarrel in any great degree with the substance of his argument. However, I would quarrel with his decision not to oppose the measure.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) observed that this was a difficult debate in which to take part. I would only add that it is a difficult task to follow his contribution. However, one of the important things which came out of his very valuable contribution to the debate was his feeling and, indeed, his warning that the "no commitment" experiment over the indefinite period tends to become a defined decision in the short term.
Looking back over the points raised in this lengthy and important debate, I am reminded of a matter raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). He referred to himself as being a delegate on behalf of the people of his constituency. I have similarly consulted the people of my constituency-those of all faiths and those of no faith. I am in the position not so much of a delegate of my constituents but of a representative of their collective conscience. If the argument is to be professed that the modern conscience is such that modern Christian teaching and philosophy and the modern Church of England Prayer Book should be updated, I say that this is surely seeking the soft option, the easy way out.
Surely no practising Methodist can deny, particularly if he is a Methodist local preacher, that if he is ever stuck for a text at that dreadful moment at five minutes to ten on a Sunday morning he turns instinctively either to the writings of St. Paul or John Wesley and accepts without question and without doubt the actual form of words and usage laid down either 1,200 years ago in the case of St. Paul or 200 years ago in the case of John Wesley.
Therefore, the excuse that is it necessary to update the Prayer Book and the philosophy is, I believe, a totally unjusti-

fied and unwarranted one on the part of anybody who endeavours to lead people in worship.
I was impressed by the sincere argument put forward by the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) to whom I owe an apology in that in attempting to identify him I jotted him down as the "bearded ex-curate from Sheffield". I am now delighted to have identified him properly. I followed him argument by argument and among his points was a seeming argument in favour of updating the 1662 Prayer Book, because concealed in it, lurking in the pages of the marriage service was the point that somehow, surreptitiously, an envelope had to be laid on the Prayer Book containing the fee for the service. When I contrast that with the philosophy of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) and accept that, indeed, perhaps the downfall of Christian standards these days is related to the surreptitious handing of an envelope from the health service store or from the chemist shop to the errant bridegroom-to-be I would rather have the envelope that is implicit in the 1662 Prayer Book than the envelope that is implicit in 1974 morality——

Mr. Clemitson: I was not arguing against the use of the 1662 Prayer Book or its preservation. I was merely pointing out the dangers of too great an attachment to a particular book and that if we are not careful this can become a form of idolatry, and that those who are the greatest proponents of the 1662 Prayer Book in practice-I admit I chose somewhat trivial examples-will pick and choose their way through the book, and why not.

Mr. Mudd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. His slow action replay missed a telling point in his original utterance. This time he referred to idolatry, whereas the first time round it was bibliolatry. I accept his qualification.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), of whose devoutness nobody with any knowledge of him could be in any doubt, implied that many young people turn to the Church these days purely in the hope of finding some modernity of approach. In my case it was because I found the established


Church becoming over-modernised that at the age of 26 I turned away from the Church, which I found to be going too far off beam, too quickly in the wrong direction, to pick up the Methodist faith and become eventually a Methodist local preacher. True evangelism suffers from the occasional lack of being able to find the easy way rather than benefit from the ease with which one can conjure with modern phrases, techniques and beliefs. I do not believe that modernity is an obvious or an immediate way to practical evangelism.
I believe that a Christian will always be a Christian and that a Christian is no less a Christian if he has to fight and conjure with age-old words, beliefs, traditions and forms than if he glibly and easily accepts the superficial worship put increasingly and encouragingly in his path.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made many strong points. However, he did not make one point which I feel he should have made, namely, that if we support and pass this measure we are in danger of condemning the beautiful mystery of words of the traditional Book of Common Prayer to the optional choice of modern worshippers. If we take this soft option, we are in danger of destroying ourselves and the beauty of the established Christian worship, to be replaced by the sterile, bureaucratic words of modern usage.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have argued that this debate is concerned with the question whether the Church of England wishes to become disestablished. It is not up to me to define the wishes of the Church of England, but if it is its wish to become disestablished—and many of us would support in in that wish —let it have the courage to say so openly. If it seeks religious and practical democracy, if it is prepared, with the co-operation of Parliament, to throw open representation in Parliament to members of the Church of England through democratic elections of this House rather than automatic appointment to another place, we shall support it.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I wish to make a brief

intervention. It may seem inappropriate that an Episcopalian who represents a Scottish constituency should interfere in the affairs of the established Church of England. Nevertheless, the Scottish Prayer Book—which in many ways is a preferable document—relies on the existence of the English Prayer Book. I shall not speak on the question of the establishment or disestablishment of the Church of England, but it seems to me a major constitutional change to be taken in so light a measure.
I have experience of Series 2 and Series 3, and I am appalled by their English and form. The alleged option which is left in this measure for the protection of the Prayer Book is false and unrealistic. I am impressed by the falsity of the necessity for altering the language. From beginning to end of the Prayer Book there is almost no phrase which would be incomprehensible to anybody of any education. I am sure that the phraseology of any sermon interspersed in such a service in modern language would be equally incomprehensible. The language of the Psalms as translated by Edward VI is much more meaningful and comprehensible than the language of the Psalms as translated by James I and contained in the Authorised Version.
The magnificence and, in the word of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), catholicity of the language, which is entirely comprehensible, derives from the fact that it was written at a time when the capacity to express in language was a paramount capability, and that is not a characteristic of the present generation. It is a form which is recognisable and constant, and that is important in religion, which is about an eternal matter.
I am most distressed by the concept that if we make it optional it will remain. If we want to destroy anything, we make it optional. If we want people to dress for dinner we say "black tie"; if we want people not to dress for dinner we say "dress optional".
If the Prayer Book eventually ceases to be used in any parish it will never be brought back. It has a language which is eternal and it expresses standards which are eternal. We are concerned with matters which are eternal and, in the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South, important. It is absurd to


imagine that by being fashionable we are being right. Nothing could be worse than a persistent change of organisation and form of worship which are essentially everlasting.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-on-Tweed): It is right for me to say, after I have sat through most of the debate, that the House has given careful, thorough and sympathetic attention to the measure before it. It has done so in a manner which is well worthy of the subject under discussion. I think that, whatever our views, we all agree about that—and I am glad to see the Second Church Estates Commissioner indicating his assent.
I speak as a Methodist, and do not apologise for doing so. There have been several contributions to the debate made by hon. Members of denominations other than the Church of England. All denominations are affected by the character of the Church of England as an established national Church within England which throws its aura and responsibilities wider than its immediate active membership. Whatever judgment we make about the measure, we must admit that the Church of England receives allegiance, support, sympathy and understanding far beyond that immediate active membership.
Like many hon. Members of other denominations and many people who claim to be "Church of England", I find myself from time to time attending its services. I have seen the process of change and experiment that has occurred in the last few years, and I share some of the feelings of concern, unfamiliarity and confusion which ordinary churchgoers have faced during that period.
The measure asks us to give to the authorities which have been established by Parliament the opportunity in future to make the decisions about the ordering of worship and doctrine which have hitherto been made ultimately under the authority of the House. Over a period the Church of England has established a democratic machinery. It is a young democratic machinery, but full credit must be given to those who have attempted to graft on to the Church that democraic machinery. It has reached a state of some maturity but there has been a fairly dramatic change. That makes difficult

any comparison between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, in which matters of faith and order are entirely decided by the body of the Church and not by Parliament. That Church has a long-established democratic tradition of Church government.
At the beginning of the debate, having taken fairly extensive soundings among my constituents, I felt that I should support the measure and see that this degree of authority is given to bodies that the Church has developed and nurtured for this and other purposes, and that is still my feeling.
It is unfortunate that in this instance, as in Northern Ireland matters, for example, we have no opportunity to amend the measure. We can only "Take it or leave it." We are in a much more limited situation, but we must recognise that the machinery has been developed and we must give that machinery opportunities.
The Leader of the House struck an important note, which should go on record and be seen as important when the report of the debate is read, as I hope it will be, by people within the Church. He said that the entrusting of this responsibility to the authorities of the Church calls for an understanding by them of the position of the ordinary churchgoer who may not be an activist and may not be directly involved in the chain of bodies that leads ultimately to the General Synod. The views of ordinary church-goers have been represented to me, and they are views which the Leader of the House referred to appropriately in his suggestion that the Church authorities should take particular account of the position of those who come to the Church of England regularly but not frequently, regard it as their spiritual home, and expect to find some degree of consistency and familiarity in it.
I hope that the chain of experiments started by the setting up of the General Synod will prove successful. I look eventually to closer links between my Church and the Church of England. However, I should not like this measure and the necessity for passing it erected as a key issue of Church unity. It was not this question which put an end to the Anglican-Methodist negotiations. Indeed, it was scarcely raised in those negotiations. The measure must be seen by


itself as a measure and not thrown into the argument about the more general question of Church unity.
I hope that when the seriousness with which the debate has been conducted is seen by Church authorities, if the measure is passed, as I believe it should be, they will recognise and understand the views of millions of people to whom the Church of England remains of great importance whether they are its more distant and less frequent members or belong to other Churches but frequently attend services of the Church of England. I believe that those considerations will be recognised, but that it was necessary to indicate them plainly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Before calling the next speaker I should indicate to right hon. and hon. Members that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) will be closing the debate this evening. Mr. van Straubenzee.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Mr. van Straubenzee (Wokingham) rose——

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You gave only a momentary pause before calling my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) to wind up the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not see any other hon. Member rise. The debate can go on until 11.30. Mr. John Wells.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I do not rise in any spirit of awkwardness but merely to state one or two short and simple facts.
I am a churchwarden in a small country parish. Our parish priest has quietly and ruthlessly stuffed Series 3 down the throats of his parishioners at certain services, despite the wishes of the parochial church council and of myself and my fellow churchwardens. If this is typical of the conduct of the Church when it gets its own government, it would be deplorable for this measure to be passed, because, despite assurances that the 1662 Prayer Book will be left alongside as a parallel book, it will disappear. As was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbaim), there is

nothing like saying that something is optional to kill it.
I believe that this House is seeking greater status for its Members at every turn. We build car parks for ourselves, we put up our pay, and we give our secretaries more money. Altogether, we improve our own lot. Yet, month by month, year by year, we give away such rights as we have for governing this country. We set up milk marketing boards, water authorities, the British Airports Authority—every kind of body. These new bodies come into being day by day, month by month, outside parliamentary control. The Church of England is one of our oldest allies working with us. If we give up this vital matter we will show ourselves to the country as overpaid and useless people.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I sense that the warmth of my welcome is less to myself than the hopes of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the debate may be drawing to a close.
I hope that I may at least have a certain amount of sympathy from both sides of the House, for I doubt that there could be any more difficult debate to attempt to wind up than this one. It cannot often have been the experience of hon. Members that a debate of such consistently high standard and with such generosity by one expression of view to another, however strongly the differences of view may be held, has taken place. I obviously cannot hope to match that in the brief words that I shall say before we come to what all have agreed is a momentous decision.
I must declare my personal interest. It is not in any sense a pecuniary interest, but I was one of the two hon. Members who served upon the commission appointed by the then Archbishops of Canterbury and of York from which, after many years' discussion and debate, this measure comes. The other was a man to whom I should like to make a special reference, a man whom some hon. Members who were here before 1970 will remember with affection—Denis Coe, then Member for Middleton and Prest-wich, one of the best-liked and most conscientious Members of the House, who is now doing splendid work in education as Deputy Director of Middlesex Polytechnic.
If I am reminded, frequently and rightly, of the importance of this debate to the House of Commons—I trust that, as a Member of it, I would not be unaware of it—I hope that I may also remind hon. Members of what an enormously important debate this is to the Church of England, too, and how many people there are outside who are genuinely and most anxiously awaiting the outcome, both ways, of our discussion. Certainly it is a matter of enormous importance to the Church.
We all recall that the present powers under which the Church is working—if one likes, the leasehold—were granted for a period which expires in 1980. It is wise of the Church of England, is it not, to take the mind of Parliament as to what Parliament will wish the position to be after that period? There are a number of reasons for that, the second of which I will delay for a moment, but the second of which is very practical indeed.
The Church has the problem of charting its right course, directly consequent upon the decision of the House. The Church needs to know in good time what services will be authorised after 1980. The Church needs it not only to order itself and its disciplines and its formularies but for practical, simple reasons that this House will understand.
We need to know it for such ordinary reasons as the printing of the appropriate services that this House will then have said are lawful—I hope in book form. I am getting tired of the little pamphlet form with which we have in this temporary period to work. Parishes and printers, organisers and administrators, are perhaps not unwise in coming in ample time to this House to know what its will will be.
Of course it is an important matter. No one could possibly pretend otherwise. But this will not necessarily be the last time, if the House were to assent to this measure, that it would be asked to deal with matters that concern doctrine. There will be other matters, I have no doubt, with strong doctrinal content in them, for which, as an established Church, quite rightly, the Church of England will have to come to this House.
One which touches desperately difficult problems and which, needless to say,

I shall not open up tonight is what the Church is in future to do about the ordination or not of women. Are there not deep doctrinal questions in that decision, which would have to come before the House even if this measure were agreed? I can think of a few more difficult matters which have to be settled in this House.
It is understandable that so much of the discussion has centred on that incomparable and beautiful English of the 1662 Prayer Book and all that it stands for. I hope that I do not have to say that there is no one who appreciates its exquisite beauty of language more than I do. I am, after all, one of the old fogies who actually had a classical education and can, therefore, follow some of the wording of it, which is, perhaps, not quite as clear to all today as it used to be. Incidentally, day by day in the particular educational establishment I attended I prayed in Latin. I therefore look with some sadness at the passing, in every sense, of Latin in the great Roman Catholic Church.
I hope I need make no apology for the assertion of my interest and concern for the 1662 Prayer Book. I find it extraordinarily difficult to recognise in many of those I know who work devotedly in the General Synod the people said to be so anxious to do away with that Prayer Book. I beg the House to look and look again at the entrenched provisions by which in future that book, as I believe, is strengthened and not weakened.
Think, for instance, of what would have happened had this measure been law at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge (Mr. Stokes) was experiencing—his speech moved the House greatly—being driven from the church in which he was accustomed to worshipping. Consider what would have happened if this measure had been law. If, as I have no doubt, my hon. Friend could have persuaded a majority of his parochial church council, that book would have remained entrenched in the services of the Church. This is the legal position. The significance of it is that in those cases, and there are some, when the vicar or rector is a powerful character and seeks to override others he no longer would have the power so to override them if


the House were to assent to this measure. I believe in all conscience, as one who would regard it as retrograde beyond measure if this book disappeared from the services of the Church, that those like me would have a power to our elbow which the law does not currently provide if the measure were passed.
At the same time is it not a common thread running throughout the debate that there is also room for some alternative service? So many hon. Members, including those who are proposing to vote against this measure, have said that they think so. I know that I am not alone in observing the increasing use of Series 2 in the family service, which in any parish is the means by which entire families are brought into the life of the Church, thus renewing it.
This is, incidentally, quite contrary to the dismal trend which I have so often heard from the House. Can there not be many other hon. Members who have seen the Church at work in, for example, a college or university—in an unorthodox background where the modern language is of assistance to the Church in interpreting its work and doctrine particularly to the young? It is true that in many parishes most careful discussions have taken place, and continue to take place, about the use of these alternative series in a way which has brought back a life and a vigour to the services which, frankly, was not there before. None of this is an argument against the 1662 book. None of it is an argument for its abolition. It is an argument, however, for saying that it is reasonable to say, as a result of where we have got to so far at any rate, that there has been advantage in this diversity, and, paradoxical as it may seem, some uniformity in this diversity which makes it possible to say that we are moving towards the end of the immediate experimental period. When we come to 1980, only 1662—or whatever deviation from it this House may concede—will be the authorised book. This House will decide in individual and detailed cases.
I say what I next have to say with delicacy on a day when, as I gratefully concede, the Government have made time at the very beginning of the parliamen-

tary day for a debate of great significance. But I think that since I was first here 15 years ago I have been concerned directly or indirectly with nearly all the measures of the Church of England which have come before the House. It is true that all Governments are short of time, and measures of the Church of England have to find their place usually very late at night and in conditions of considerable difficulty.
Many is the time that I have argued for time from Governments of all colours who are naturally pressed. I remember, on a lighter note, an agreeable time when a certain Leader of the House, whom I would not dream of naming, found me in difficulties over a certain measure because of an unexpected vote and not enough Members were in the House. He was heard going round the corridors saying "Do get in there and vote for him. He is a good gunner." There are various good reasons for voting for Church measures, but I am bound to say that that is not one which would immediately have come to my mind.
It was precisely because of this difficulty, and the difficulty which the House felt that it was looking into matters of too great detail, that it decided for a period until 1980 that it would give this licence to the Church of England to order these detailed matters for itself. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is right beyond a peradventure. By so granting that leasehold they did not say that in due course they would grant the freehold. That is not an assertion that I would make. But I think our predecessors of that time entered into these arrangements for very sound reasons, some of which are just as sound today.
Furthermore, since then there have been changes in the government of the Church of England as authorised by this House. I accept without question that it would be even better if there could be direct elections from parish to national Synod. I have no doubt that what has been said in this House will be listened to with close attention. I do not want to appear to be dealing with a detail when I say that all of us who are directly elected know only too well the cost of that operation, and this is only one of the considerations which must weigh in a change of this kind.
Now we have a General Synod, with equal status in the Houses, of bishops, clergy and laity. I am saddened by those hon. Members who are critical of what they call activists in this body. All of us owe our places in this House to a comparatively small number of activists. All of us were selected as candidates for our respective parties by, in terms of our electorates and our constituencies, quite a small number of activists. I find it sad that people who are prepared to spend time and trouble on the work of the Church should somehow be labelled in a slightly uncomplimentary way for their public spirit in doing so.

Mr. Cormack: We at least come here with the votes of our constituents even though we may have been selected initially by a smaller group. In view of what my hon. Friend said about the Synod being more broadly representative, does he not think that if we reject the measure tonight it might give the opportunity for the Synod to be reorganised in that way?

Mr. van Straubenzee: In that case we should have to do so before 1980, and it would have to be completed before 1980. There are very elaborate procedures in the General Synod for changes of this kind and they have been outlined earlier in the debate. There would be uncertainty as to what the final decision of the House would be in relation to services alternative to those laid down in 1662.

Mr. Powell: There would surely be nothing in the meantime to prevent a measure whereby alternative services now experimented with would be authorised being presented to this House.

Mr. van Straubenzee: That would not be necessary because as the law stands at present they would so remain. I was making the point that in a perfect society direct elections would be desirable. I was, however, on the point of making an additional comment, that the Synod is a very much more broadly based national Synod than ever it was before and very much closer to the man in the pew than has always been generously conceded in the debate.
I accept entirely that as parliamentarians we must disregard threats. I do not go along with the hint that I have heard that if we do not assent to this

measure there will be widspread illegality once 1980 comes to be. Parliamentarians on both sides have to say that the Church in this matter must render unto Ceasar, and if that be the law of the land it is our duty as parliamentarians, even if we, as I do, dislike that law, firmly to uphold that law and give a lead to others to do precisely the same.
Nor am I impressed by the argument that we might have presented to us some kind of pistol on the basis of disestablishment. That said, let no hon. Member underestimate the rebuff which this House will have administered, if that be its decision, by not giving its assent to this measure today.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Duress.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not think that is is duress, but I say, having quite clearly stated by argument on the pistol-pointing argument, that on the other side there will be devoted Church men, priestly and learned, who will feel a deep sense of rebuff. Of course, it would be a perfectly proper decision for the House to make, and I do not complain of it or of those who might take part in it, whatever their beliefs.
One of the things which impressed me as I listened to the evidence in the Church Estates Commission—and this is the other reason for moving forward—was that when the other Churches in this country came to give testimony to our commission there was a striking change historically from a very few years before. Then our friends in the Roman Catholic and Free Churches would have been glad to see the Church of England disestablished.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: No.

Mr. van Straubenzee: This is historical fact. A short while ago it was, sadly, a matter of deep division. The establishment of the Church of England was a highly controversial matter. But the evidence we took from all the Churches today was that they would see the disestablishment of the Church of England as a set-back to them all. This is the new element in the situation. But that is no reason for clinging precisely to the present form of the establishment.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way,


because I am anxious that he should not end his speech without covering a point of great moment. The House does not have an opportunity to amend the measure. Therefore, it must take it or reject it as it stands. Why does the Church feel it right in those circumstances to ask us to take an irrevocable decision to transfer the powers in question, rather than simply to ask for the endorsement of the changes it wishes to make, and return subsequently with further changes that it feels would be appropriate?

Mr. van Straubenzee: That is precisely the point I was reaching. I was seeking to show, I am sure very inadequately, that there was a new element in the whole of the dialogue between the Churches in this country. I was suggesting that, contrary to the historical situation up to a fairly short number of years ago, the establishment of the Church of England was no longer the barrier that some people thought it was, but that, if we were imaginative enough both in the Churches and in the House, there might well be a new form of establishment which more accurately reflected the facts of the present situation.
Those facts are that when the State seeks advice from, or consultation with, a religious body, it no longer goes solely to the Church of England. It goes for it to the amalgam of the Christian Churches

in this country. If it seeks advice on education, for example, it does not go to one Church alone.

If we are sufficiently imaginative we can have a form of establishment that will accurately reflect the facts as they are rather than what they used historically to be. But a prerequisite of that coming together is that the Church of England shall not be the one Church which is not to be master in its own house with regard to the ordering of its worship and doctrine.

This consideration partially explains the timetable and answers some of the points made in the debate. It partially injects into the debate a new element, which is a concept which I very much hope may commend itself to the House in the new spirit that animates Christians in all Churches, and which should be brought to the attention of the House before it comes to a decision.

Slowly and painstakingly, the measure has been debated and sieved through the organs of the Church, and a decision has been reached. It is significant that another place gave its approval. We should complete the work, understanding that we have safeguarded the interests of the State in the further mission of the Church.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 45.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dormand, Jack
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Awdry, Daniel
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunter, Adam


Bean, Robert E.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hurd, Douglas


Beith, A. J.
Dunn, James A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Benyon, W. R.
Durant, Tony
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Biffen, John
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Janner, Greville


Bishop, Edward
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick (Redbr.)


Blaker, Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
Jessel, Toby


Booth, Albert
Eyre, Reginald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betry
Flannery, Martin
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brotherton, Michael
George, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Lamond, James


Buck, Anton
Goodhew, Victor
Lane, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Graham, Ted
Le Merchant, Spencer


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lowis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clemitson, I. M.
Grist, Ian
Loyden, Eddie


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
Grocott, Bruce
Luce, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Grylls, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
MacCormick, lain


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crouch, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)


Cryer, Bob
Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hannam, John
Mawby, Ray


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick


Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony




Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Trotter, Neville


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sainsbury, Tim
van Slraubenzee, W. R.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shepherd, Colin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Neave, Airey
Silvester, Fred
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Newens, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Noble, Mike
Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Michael


Ovenden, John
Snape, Peter
Watkins, David


Palmer, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Weatherill, Bernard


Parkinson, Cecil
Spence, John
Weetch, Ken


Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stallard, A. W.
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Penhallgon, David
Stanley, John
Woodall, Alec


Perry, Ernest
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)



Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.)
Stradling Thomas, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. Peter Mills and


Rodgers, William (Teesside)
Tinn, James
Mr. Frank R. White.


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Townsend, Cyril D.





NOES


Biggs-Davison, John
Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Branoon


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton)
McCrindle, Robert
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
McCusker, Harold
Royle, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Clegg, Walter
Mates, Michael
Stainlon, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Molyneaux, James
Viggers, P. J.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Monro, Hector
Wells, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, Jerry (Weston-s-Mare)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mudd, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St.)
Nott, John
Younger, Hon George


Gow, I. (Eastbourne)
Oakes, Gordon



Griffiths, Eldon
Paisley, Rev Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook and


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hn Sir D. (Hunts.)
Mr. Alan Clark.


Kelletl-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure, passed by the National

Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRY

10.55 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: It is not without significance that the Chamber is emptying as we are about to discuss industrial matters, having discussed Church of England matters all day, although I appreciate that it has been a historic debate.
I am fortunate to have drawn the first debate on the Bill because I drew the second debate in July. I and the Minister will get an early night.
Selective assistance to industry through Government is a fairly contentious matter. The debate that I have initiated will cover many aspects of the Industry Act 1972 which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is showing a willingness to use in a way not contemplated by the previous Conservative Government. He promised to do so in an article in the Sunday Times 18 months ago.
There are those who violently disagree with selective assistance to industry. The CBI in its recent publication entitled "Industry and Government"—it was published in July this year—reminded us that it voiced strong objection to some of the provisions of the Industry Act 1972, notably the discretionary powers to disperse large amounts of selective aid to private industry as the Secretary of State sees fit. It urges the deletion of the very clause that my right hon. Friend has indicated that he will act upon by the publication of the Estimates.
The CBI made it clear that the previous Government did not meet its wish for the provision of clear criteria on selective assistance to industry. I hope

that not before too long we might be able to say to the CBI "You ain't seen nothing yet" when my right hon. Friend publishes his proposals for the new Industry Act. Some time has passed since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
The Stop-Go economy of the last 12 years failed because the expansionary phases have not created growth in those industries which could provide a permanent break-through in Britain's export trade or a lasting saving in imports. … Monetary planning is not enough. What are needed are structural changes in British industry and we are not going to achieve those on the basis of pre-election spurts every four years in our industry, or of the hope of selling the overspill of the affluent society in the high developed markets of Western Europe. What we need are new industries and it will be the job of the next Government to see that we get them. … When we set up new industries based on science there need be no argument about location, no costly bribes to private enterprise to go here rather than there. We shall provide the enterprise and we shall decide where it goes.
That was my right hon. Friend's speech in October 1963. If we close our eyes and forget that 11 years have passed we may feel that we have not made much progress. However, if we consider our present proposals for selective assistance to industry by the National Enterprise Board, it is clear that not only did my right hon. Friend analyse the situation correctly 11 years ago but forecast the solution for overcoming the problem of deciding who is to be master, Government or industry.
That is the crucial question, and at the end of the day we must come up with the answer that the Government must be master of the economy. If we are to avoid stop-go once and for all, discrimination—to use my right hon. Friend's words "ruthless discrimination"—is required in the areas of import controls, planned foreign trade, capital control and, above all, the planned location of industry, building controls and Government-owned science-based industries. We know that if the whole economy is depressed by monetary and fiscal measures without selectivity, aid for investment is enjoyed by companies for doing no more than they would have done without the aid. To back that assertion we can take the evidence of the companies themselves,


as given to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. I refer to a memorandum by Dr. Holland in 1973.
Unilever said that it was unable to produce evidence from its own experience that the regional employment premium had increased investment or employment in the development areas, GKN submitted that the attraction of the incentive had so far been inadequate. Tube Investments said that there were not many projects where regional policy or selective aid were of crucial importance to the strategic decision to locate. Dunlop was bare-faced enough to admit that it actually made a surplus from regional incentives which was used for investment elsewhere. That information has been published and presented in papers to the House.
That shows that it is all carrot and no stick in such a situation and that only selective assistance or intervention can bring about the structural changes about which the Prime Minister spoke 11 years ago.
At the root of the problem undoubtedly lies the fact that private industry will invest only when it sees the growth of a profitable market. No one denies that, least of all private industry. Industry clearly did not see the growth of profitable markets during the term of the previous Government. In 1972 investment in industrial manufacturing was 15 per cent. less than that of 1970. In 1973 it was 10 per cent. less than that of 1970 —taking constant prices.
As those of us on the Government side of the House see it, the extension of public sector investment is the first step towards reducing the power of private capital. The private sector in this country has still, in 1974, to be brought into the position of being a servant of the public sector. To establish the public sector as the master and not the servant is not a question of personnel, instruments or even powers. It is a question of determination, determination which will mobilise the democratic power of this House and of the Government. If we are successful, the conflicts and contradictions of our present economic system will remain—I am under no illusions about that —but the way of overcoming them can

be laid only by pushing up to and beyond the limits of what is acceptable to private capital in a private capitalist economy.
However, without a major National Enterprise Board on the lines originally proposed—I stress the word "originally" —such leverage on the leading companies in the private sector of industry will not be possible. The original plan envisaged that the NEB would be represented in each of the major manufacturing sectors. Only in this way shall we be able to switch initiative in leverage from the private to the public sector—which again the Prime Minister advocated 11 years ago.
While Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 has certainly been used, and is planned to be used, in a way that was probably never contemplated by the previous Government, although it was their Act, it is no good deluding ourselves that the mere purchase of shares—the particular point on which I have chosen to hang my speech—will solve our problem.
It is not unknown for the Government to own shares in a private company and to place a director on its board, but then to find that when that director is called for a chat about how the company is faring—that director being a Government placee, looking after the Government's shareholding—he is told by the managing director, "I am responsible for the shareholders as a whole."
The point that I want to emphasise— and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will do this—is that a Government shareholding under our present companies laws will not bring about one iota of control of these companies. Only by changing the Companies Act shall we start to get a different system and the structural changes in industry which we have advocated for so long.
Nevertheless, we on the Government side of the House and the trade unionists to whom I have spoken, and many other people, are very pleased that the Government have at least shown a willingness to use positively the instruments placed in their possession by the previous Government.
I am glad to be able to offer to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) a chance to bring his contribution a few hours forward.
I have made the important points I wished to make. We are 11 years overdue with these measures, and I welcome the opportunity to bring these points forward and give an opportunity to the Minister of State——

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that in a government we shared quite a few of his ambitions about changing the ownership of industry and in the Finance Act 1973 we introduced measures which would have made it possible for employees of companies to become shareholders in those companies and gave them incentives to become shareholders. We introduced, in our pension scheme, measures which would have created funded pension schemes, the funds in which would have been invested in industry. We took steps to ensure that irreversible changes in ownership took place. The hon. Member's Government, when they took office, solemnly sat on both those measures, made one most unattractive and abandoned the other, and prevented the very thing we started and which the hon. Member wants. His Government prevented the shift of ownership in industry.

Mr. Rooker: If it were not for the Industry Act 1972 I would not have been standing here, and I applaud those measures of the previous Government.
Dealing with the point about workers taking shares, to take one example, GKN has 83,000 separate shareholders but holds its annual meeting in a hotel which would not take more than 150 in the room, so what is the use? The whole point is to get some measure of control. It is fatuous to take one example alone, but I have made my points. I know that there are to be 14 other debates, and I do not want to delay other hon. Members longer than is necessary.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his choice of subject, which is as appropriate now as it was in July. I have pleasure in following him, for the second time, in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Although I congratulate him on the subject, I would not do so on the content

of his contribution. However, I would thank him for an earlier start than I would otherwise have had in my lowly position at No. 11 in the list of debates tonight.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that the Secretary of State for Industry was using the Industry Act 1972 in a way which had never occurred before. I would not disagree about that. I note that in a parliamentary reply on 22nd November it was stated that the estimated expenditure under the Industry Act 1972 in the current financial year totals £417 million. That is a figure to ponder.
I wish to address my remarks to a part of that Act which, in financial terms, is limited in scope; that is, to Sections 7 and 8, under which selective assistance can be given by the Secretary of State for Industry. Although the present incumbent has only been in office for nine months, some important conclusions can be drawn already from the use of those selective powers. The significance of those conclusions not merely relates to the use made of the 1972 Act but is doubly significant because it could presage the way in which much greater powers, and financially much more significant powers, may be used under the legislation which the Government have promised to introduce this Session.
I wish to set out what I understand to be the position concerning the individual interventions which the Secretary of State has made under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that it is extraordinarily difficult in often complex and sensitive company situations for the House to follow the extent to which the Secretary of State is making commitments of public funds under those sections. I understand from the published information available to us that the Secretary of State has five on-going company situations on which he has embarked since he took office in February.
First, the right hon. Gentleman has made the offer of £4·95 million to the Meriden Workers' Co-operative. That offer represents £4·2 million of loan and £0·75 million of grant. The Secretary of State said in a parliamentary reply on 28th November that the £495 million offer to the Meriden Workers' Co-operative still represents the limit of the financial undertaking made to the co-operative. But there is a very mysterious order which


is indicated on the Order Paper under which the amount which will be advanced under the Industry Act to Norton Villiers Triumph will be increased to a ceiling of £12·872 million. I presume that that sum includes the £4·872 million which was advanced by the Conservative Government in 1973. What is not clear is whether that £12·872 million includes the offer of the £4·95 million which has been made by the Secretary of State to the Meriden Workers' Co-operative.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has made a commitment to the Workers' Action Committee which has been set up to see whether the proposed Scottish Daily News can be got off the ground. Again, an offer of £1·75 million has been made and a time limit of 28th February next year has been put on the taking up of that offer.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State has made a financial commitment to the workers' co-operative at IPD (Industrial). I understand it to be a grant commitment of £3·9 million. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that it is a once-for-all grant and that it will not be increased, but no time limit has been put on the taking up of the grant by the workers' co-operative.
Fourthly, the Secretary of State for Industry has made a commitment of a bank guarantee to Scientific and Medical Instruments Limited. One of the strange features of that commitment is that, though there has been a public commitment to that guarantee, neither its terms nor the ceiling commitment have been announced. Therefore, the Secretary of State would appear to have put himself into a singularly open-ended situation concerning his Department's liability.
Finally, there has been a public announcement of a bank guarantee made available to Alfred Herbert Limited. Here, too, though there has been a public commitment to the guarantee, as in the case of Scientific and Medical Instruments Limited, neither the amount nor the terms of the guarantee have been announced. However, the guarantee has been made available in principle.
There are conclusions which can be drawn, though I should be the first to concede that the Secretary of State has chosen, possibly not wisely, to intervene in situations which are both difficult and

certainly very sensitive, and I do not under-estimate his problems in resolving the situations in which he has chosen to intervene. However, I wish to highlight three areas in which some deductions can be drawn.
The first concerns the readiness with which the Secretary of State has come forward with financial assistance to workers' co-operatives. It is significant that three out of the five cases to which I have drawn attention involve commitments to workers' co-operatives— Meriden, the Scottish Daily News and IPD (Industrial).
It is worth noting that, though these commitments have been made, in no case have the individual workers' co-operatives yet formally got off the ground in that there has been a formal conclusion of the financial arrangements between them and the Department of Industry.
The point that I should like to highlight is the singular lack of consistency, as it appears from the published information, in the terms and amount of help given to the individual co-operatives.
In the first instance, there is no consistency as to whether the co-operatives have been offered loan or grant finance. For example, the Meriden co-operative has been offered mainly loan finance—a £4·2 million loan out of a total offer of £4·95 million. The IPD (Industrial) co-operative has been offered all grant assistance—a total of £3·9 million. The workers' action committee for the Scottish Daily News has been offered all loan assistance up to £1·75 million.
If there is considerable unevenness whether grant or loan arrangements have been made with the workers' co-operatives, there is even more pronounced unevenness in the terms that have been attached to the financial undertakings given by the Department of Industry.
The £4·95 million for the Meriden Workers' Co-operative has been made available on the basis of one very important condition, that the co-operative manages to enter into a satisfactory commercial arrangement with Norton Villiers Triumph. That condition has so far not been fulfilled. The Secretary of State for Industry, in an answer on 28th November, made it clear that the satisfying of that condition was funda-


mental to the honouring of the offer of the £4·95 million to the Meriden co-operative.
Even more stringent conditions have been attached to the offer of £1·75 million to the Scottish Daily News co-operative. Six detailed conditions have been laid down. It is clearly the intention of the Department of Industry that the co-operative should demonstrate that it will be able to perform in a commercially viable way.
Virtually no conditions whatsoever have however been laid down for the IPD (Industrial) co-operative. The Government have said that the £3·9 million represents a maximum commitment, but there is no time limit on the taking up of that amount, and apparently no conditions have been attached to that offer.
The reasons are emphatically set out in a Press release put out by the Department of Industry on 1st November. In that striking Press release the Department, regarding the offer of the grant to the IPD (Industrial) workers' co-operative, said:
In reaching this decision the Government has taken account of the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board that assistance on the basis proposed could not be justified under the guiding principles that they had been asked to apply. On the other hand, the Government whilst recognising the considerations which led the Board to this view, has been greatly influenced by the resolution and determination of the workers concerned who, having campaigned for so long for the right to work in Merseyside where male unemployment is 9·5 per cent. have demonstrated their readiness to take responsibility for their own affairs and to see to it that the Co-operative is a success, an experiment in industrial organisation of great potential significance.
It appears from that Press release that where workers, in an area of admittedly high unemployment, are willing to form a co-operative and to show themselves determined to try to make a commercial success of it, the Government are willing to enter into a financial commitment to that co-operative on the basis of no strings being attached.
Lastly, exactly what status do workers' co-operatives have, from a legal point of view in particular? Will they become incorporated? Will they become companies? Will they accept liabilities under the Companies Acts? What personal liabilities will be taken on by those responsible for the management of those

co-operatives? What liabilities will they discharge to their employees? These are not political questions, but real practical questions which have so far been unanswered, and without answer to which no one working in a co-operative can feel his financial position to be secure. In making direct financial offers to workers' co-operatives, the Department is launching out into uncharted waters, and these co-operatives are experimental boats.
I should like to reach some preliminary conclusions, if possible, as to whether interventions so far by the Secretary of State has been beneficial or detrimental to the companies concerned. I readily concede that these are relatively early days, and that the Secretary of State has been in office for only nine months, but it is at least possible to draw some conclusions about the risks of this form of intervention from one of the five concerns I have mentioned, that at Meriden.
This not the time for a full-scale debate about the Meriden-NVT situation, but I hope that we shall shortly be able to have one. However, without doubt the intervention of the Secretary of State in that situation will result in a larger commitment of public funds, possibly a much larger commitment, than if he had not intervened. Whether the Secretary of State will be able to justify this is a matter for him and not one on which I want to dwell, but the facts are already loud and clear.
The initial commitment to Norton Villiers Triumph was in June 1973, when the then Minister for Industrial Development committed £4·872 million to the company. I was not in the House at the time, but I do not believe that it was suggested by any party that that commitment was not perfecly adequate to bring about the necessary reorganisation of the motor cycle industry and the merger of the motor cycle interests of Manganese Bronze and BSA into the new Norton Villiers Triumph company. That sum was judged by all at the time to be an adequate commitment of public funds.

Mr. Tom King: I was in the House at the time and, as my hon. Friend will know, somewhat involved in this. The project was submitted to the Industrial Development Advisory Board, consisting of men of great eminence in industry, and it received their approval.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful. The position now is substantially different. The degree of public liability has escalated considerably. The Secretary of State has already offered £4·95 million to the Meriden co-operative. There is a figure of £12·872 million on the Order Paper, although the order has not yet been presented to the House.
Possibly more significant, the Chairman of Norton Villiers Triumph, Mr. Dennis Poore, was quoted in the Financial Times on 2nd December as saying that about £20 million would now be necessary to ensure that we maintained a viable motor cycle industry.
Certainly the financial liability on public funds is vastly greater now than it was prior to the intervention by the Secretary of State. One of the other results has been the degree of damage done to the export possibilities of this industry as a result of the protracted difficulties in resolving the situation between the Meriden and Small Heath workers.
Finally, I come to the broad question of what are the guidelines under which the Government are operating in deciding how they should make selective assistance under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972. It is evident that the Government do not regard the advice they receive from the Industrial Advisory Board as being in any way particularly relevant in deciding whether to intervene in a given situation. I believe I am right in saying that the advice of the board has been rejected more often than it has been accepted. [Interruption.] I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments when he replies. Of the five cases I have mentioned I believe it is right to say that the advice of the board has been rejected on more occasions than it has been accepted. I do not believe that it would be right to say that the Secretary of State is operating on the basis of essentially commercial criteria in deciding whether to intervene. One of the factors which come out again and again is that the right hon. Gentleman appears to be motivated, above all else, by the question of whether jobs should be preserved at existing places of work.
This is illustrated by the fact that offers of assistance in three out of the five cases I have mentioned have been to workers' co-operatives. It is illustrated even more graphically by the chain of

events which led to the Secretary of State's offer of assistance to Scientific and Medical Instruments. In August the Department of Industry was backing, as a 24 per cent. shareholder in George Kent, the acquisition of George Kent by GEC. At that time the Department seemed to be in favour of preserving wholly British control over this important instrument group. In September the employees of George Kent indicated to the Department that they preferred not acquisition by GEC but acquisition by the Swiss group of Brown, Boveri.
On 22nd October the Secretary of State announced a complete reversal of his policy and said he had switched his support from an acquisition by GEC of George Kent to an acquisition by Brown, Boveri. The right hon. Gentleman, when he made his announcement on that day, acknowledged what was the factor chiefly responsible for his change of mind. He said in the Press release:
The main factor in my mind in reaching this decision has been the preference expressed to me by the workers of George Kent, Ltd. for the Brown, Boveri proposals.
I am not in any way suggesting that it may not be perfectly justifiable to expend public funds to preserve jobs as they exist. I am not in any way suggesting that it is not of the utmost importance to consult those whose livelihood may be directly affected by a particular acquisition proposal. But what I do ask the Minister to answer are these basic questions.
First, will he tell us whether job preservation is the sole criterion in determining the use of the selective assistance powers under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act? Will he say whether that is the case, bearing in mind that the use of financial assistance to preserve existing jobs can be, and has already shown itself to be, directly detrimental in some cases to the viability of other jobs? Workers at Small Heath will give testimony to that danger.
The second question is: if job preservation is to be the sole criterion in using powers under these sections, will the Minister tell the House whether there is a ceiling price he is prepared to pay for the maintenance of individual jobs? How far is he prepared to go under Sections 7 and 8 in hauling public money in to maintain existing jobs at existing places of work?
Sufficient money has been sent, and it is now essential for the Secretary of State to set out to the House the guidelines under which these wide, selective powers are being used. It is doubly important because the way they are being used is likely to presage the way in which the vastly greater powers, with far greater resources of public funds, may well be used under the legislation shortly to be introduced.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for raising this subject, which enables me to raise the question of the Scottish Daily News project.
Last March Beaverbrook Newspapers Limited announced the closure of its Glasgow premises. Those of us who know the newspaper and printing industry in Glasgow do not find the closure of a newspaper a new experience. But, unlike previous occasions, this time there is limited scope for absorbing the displaced printing workers into other commercial and newspaper offices in the West of Scotland.
Only the considerable enthusiasm shown by the workers at Albion Street has kept alive the prospects of the workers' co-operative. The concept of a workers' co-operative in the newspaper industry is perhaps not the best test-bed for such a new venture. The Government have throughout shown encouragement to the workers' action group. However, I have a number of constituents who were made redundant by Beaverbrook Newspapers, and it is a fair reflection of their feeling to say that time is getting on and some of them think that they have had the run-around as far as the Government are concerned. There is no doubt that the Department of Industry is a very large building in which to get lost.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has extended the time limit to 28th February 1975 for the loan which he is proposing to make available to the workers concerned. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) touched on the question of the stringent conditions laid down in the case of the Scottish Daily News project. There is no doubt that all of us as taxpayers

expect our money to be carefully handled. At the same time, we are going to have to accept the risks behind the establishment of workers' co-operatives. If we are hoping to maintain a policy of full employment, we shall have to grasp at all sorts of opportunities to encourage the development of workers' co-operatives wherever they arise.
It is possible that had the workers at Albion Street enjoyed the benefit of professional assistance fairly early on in their plan, it might have reduced the period of delay. I hope in this respect that when we are setting up the National Enterprise Board, and also the Co-operative Development Agency, which I should like to see, we shall bear in mind the importance of adequate consultancy services for workers in this sort of situation, where, very often, they lack the professional skills in accountancy, finance and economics and so on. Otherwise, they have to go to outside sources for such assistance, which takes considerable time.
I have already had correspondence with the Secretary of State in connection with the proposal put forward by Mr. Frederick Smith, the General Secretary of the Scottish Graphical Association, for further Government participation in the Scottish Daily News project in the form of the acquisition of shares. I accept the point that the Secretary of State makes in his letter to me of 29th November, that the question of public participation raises special problems in the case of newspapers. I readily accept that this is a matter that the Royal Commission on the Press might well consider. But that will take time, and in the meantime it is most important that the workers in the Scottish Daily News project should not feel that they are losing out.
I want an assurance that the Government will do their utmost to assist the Workers' Action Committee in the present stage of its work, not simply as an enthusiastic supporter of the concept of worker co-operatives, but as an active centre-forward wanting to score a goal. That means, in my book, setting up the Scottish Daily News early in the new year

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr.


Graigen). I accept his good intentions, but I hope for his sake and for the sake of the would-be workers in the co-operative that might run the daily newspaper that he does not achieve his ambition. I say that because this project has no future and the people whom he is encouraging to have hopes about the security of their jobs have no prospect of job security in that venture.
I believe that by any commercial criterion this project is bound to be a failure. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends like it, the fact is that the security of the jobs of those who might be tempted to work in that enterprise will depend on whether people want to buy what the workers produce. All the signs are—and the Beaverbrook group learned it the expensive way—that nobody wants to buy the paper, and the sooner the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends realise that there is job security not because the Government say so but because people want what someone is producing the better it will be for him and for those whom he might tempt into thinking they have a future in the workers' co-operative. They might produce a newspaper, but they will do so at great loss, and the project will fold up in a very short time.
Job security has very little to do with whether the Department of Industry smiles on a product. Job security depends entirely upon whether people want to buy what someone has to sell, and the signs are, as I said—and I do not want to repeat myself—that people do not want to buy. The signs are that those whom the hon. Gentleman is tempting to go into that ill-fated co-operative do not have the security that he and I should wish for them, and the sooner they accept that and find their way into profitable ventures where they have a secure future the better it will be for them and for us.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and I found his enthusiasm for his own remarks slightly chilling. One of the tragedies of this place is that people such as the hon. Gentleman, who I suspect have never employed anybody or created anything that employs anybody, cheerfully blabber on about the idea that changing ownership does something to secure the future of those who work in an industry.

Mr. Rooker: Unlike most hon. Members opposite and, indeed, most hon. Members on this side of the House, I have worked on both sides of industry. I have worked with my hands. I have opened a factory and, in fact, I have closed a facory. Therefore, I speak from practical experience, but not as an owner. I was never an owner, but I have seen the effects of ownership.

Mr. Parkinson: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman, at the risk of sounding slightly condescending—although I do not mean to—is that he did not learn much from his experience.
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) speaking about the Norton Villiers Triumph venture and industrial advisory boards. I declare my interest here and now. I was a reluctant supporter of my own Government in that venture. I have never believed that one can buy X years purchase of the previous year's export orders by keeping a company in business. The £4,872,000 was in itself a trumped-up figure. I am always suspicious of figures which are just below the maximum at which discussion has to take place. I thought that in itself was some sort of comment on the quality of the decision.
I know that I am putting my hon. Friend in a bit of difficulty because he is a very loyal person whom I have known for longer than either he or I are prepared to admit, and he was very much involved in the decision which resulted. He can make a very honest case for it. But I have my reservations about the idea that one can buy the previous year's export orders five, six, seven, or 10 times, because one steps in and keeps the thing going. If I had any money to invest, the last place that I would look at would be that co-operative to which reference has been made. It does not have a future. The workers in Small Heath have an instinct for these things. Most of the people who have worked for it have left, and they will not go back. They know on which side their bread is buttered. It was an ill-fated venture. It was typical of the sort of temptation which is offered by Governments when they want the willing suspension of disbelief, about which somebody far more famous than I wrote.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Perry Barr I thought that I had never


heard anybody make a better case against the acquisition by Government of shareholdings in ventures. He talked about regional policy and said that it has not worked. He is quite right; it has not. Yet Governments from both major parties have poured hundreds of millions—possibly thousands of millions—of pounds with the best of intentions into the regions. He says that by his own standards it has not worked out. He says that Governments have said to industry "We will penalise you if you do not go to the development areas. We will make it difficult for you to stay in non-development area. We will give you money if you go to the development areas. We will encourage you in every way not to do what you want to do."
Many companies have been tempted, and they have gone off to the development areas, where they have opened factories, and slowly but surely the crunch comes. The first factory that gets closed is the factory in the development area, because it finds that it can make what it wants to make in the areas such as the hon. Member represents, in Birmingham and in the Midlands area, more cheaply and more competitively than in the development areas. So, although they have been bribed, paid and encouraged in every way open to the Government, the economic facts drive themselves home, and ultimately those companies fall back to relying on their basic gut instinct and start making their products in the Midlands, near the markets and near a supply of skilled labour.
I do not decry regional policy, but whatever Governments do economic factors will in the end assert themselves and the regions will only be as well off as the country as a whole. I am an overspill man. I want to see Birmingham thriving because then the economic pressures will force firms to the regions, and it is only economic pressures which will ensure worthwhile employment in the regions.

Mr. Rooker: Mr. Rooker rose——

Mr. Parkinson: I will not give way to the hon. Member. I am in danger of making a long speech, which I do not want to do.
I think it is an overstatement to say that regional policy has been a failure,

but it has been disappointing. The people who are disappointed are not those in Birmingham and the other wealthy regions, but people in the development areas, like the Minister of State, who lives in one and who appreciates the urgency of helping those areas but who knows that no Government has found the answer.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr criticised the Government's nominee directors, and I could not agree more. Government after Government have pumped millions of pounds into companies which now run into a great, grotesque and boring list. On the boards of these companies sits a nominee director of the Government. He has revealed himself as a powerless and useless creature. Take the examples of Beagle Aircraft and UCS. In the case of UCS I asked for the accounts four months ago. I did not get them. When those accounts finally appeared they confirmed my worst suspicions, and so I did my bit. The hon. Member says that Government-nominated directors have no effect, but that is the best method that the Government have available to them.
The hon. Member said that the Government pump money into companies but that the monitoring machinery is not satisfactory and that there are not enough people capable of monitoring Government investments. That is a very good argument for not having more Government investments. The hon. Member pointed out the limits to the power of the shareholder, and I agree with him. Shareholding in a company is as of nothing. If the company is not successful owning shares is a burden, and if it is successful it is a problem in many ways, and I should be glad to explain them to the hon. Member in private.
The hon. Member says that ownership is not the answer. If a company is not going right, that does the owner no good. If it is going right it does not matter who owns it, because then the community as a whole benefits. That is not an argument for increasing public ownership, because if a company is successful, regardless of who owns it the State, the public or whatever it is called is the beneficiary.
I was an accountant in practice for 12 years and I saw where most of the profits of successful companies went—in corporation tax. I never complained about that. I have always listened with


interest to the Secretary of State for Energy talking about a proper return on investment in North Sea oil. I could introduce him to thousands of better investments. The Government are picking up 52 per cent. of the profits of companies in which they do not have a penny—a nil investment and 52 per cent. of the profits. If the company is successful, the State and the community get the benefit. If it is unsuccessful, what does the community want with it? It is a problem, not an asset but a liability.
The hon. Gentleman said that regional policy has not worked. It has been the prime interest of Governments for many years. He talked about the Government's incapacity to monitor their investments. I agree. He also talked about the shareholders' limited rights, and he is right. He then said that we must increase the community's right to own things and have a a stake in them. Everything the hon. Gentleman said was an argument against what he wants to believe. It was a pleasant interlude in the life of the House, but a total waste of his and our time.
Over and over again Labour Members boast that what they are doing is being done under the Industry Act 1972. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) will not agree, but I think that it is to our shame that they can claim that. I regard it as a measure of which we have less right to be proud than many other very good things that we did in government.

Mr. Rooker: Like the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Parkinson: That was an exceptionally good measure, which has been totally misrepresented by Labour Members. They created a myth which they are having to live with. Their problem is that they created an idea among the unions that the unions are beyond reproach and beyond the law. At the end of the day they and we will be the principal payers of the price of that myth.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for indulging myself in a way, but you and I know that my opportunities to do so are very limited, for various reasons known to both of us. I have picked a late hour, and I hope that you will forgive me. I shall not take much longer.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has come up with Finance for In-

dustry. It is to be the great white hope for British investment. I do not see the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the saviour of British industry. I see him as the original snake. Having inflicted on British industry colossal tax increases and pre-payment of taxes, he has now said "I have seen the eror of my ways. I am half-convinced that I was wrong. I will remit half of my mistakes, and now the onus is on British industry to produce the investment and export-led boom." He has set industry an impossible task. At a time of world recession, we are supposed to increase exports. When there is spare capacity, industry is supposed to create more. The Chancellor has pushed over to industry the duty of saving the British economy at a time when it is impossible for it to do so.
In a few months' time the Minister of State, Department of Industry, and his Secretary of State will be yelling once again that the private sector has let us down, that this is the time for the National Enterprise Board to intervene.

Mr. Rooker: That is right.

Mr. Parkinson: The Chancellor damaged industrial confidence by a most ill-timed Budget in March, in which he set out to penalise companies for making profits. He described their profits as monstrous and obscene at the time. The profits which the Chancellor now plans to relieve from corporation tax were described by him in March, before the presentation of the Budget, as obscene. In every word that he utters the right hon. Gentleman confirms to the public at large, as well as to those who understand these matters, that everything he said in March was totally untrue. He has set British industry an impossible task. He has created a ridiculous institution, Finance for Industry, which is unwanted, unloved and unnecessary. Nobody will borrow money at commercial rates for investment now to create spare capacity which is not needed, since the world is entering a recession.
The Government have created a climate within which it is impossible for British industry to perform. The Government try to hold themselves up as the great friends of British industry, who are giving British industry a chance. The only chance they are giving British industry is the chance to have its neck wrung.


Many Government supporters are waiting to do that, and British industry knows it.
Presumably the Government see the National Enterprise Board and planning agreements as the vehicle needed to monitor the new technique of acquiring or increasing their stake in British industry.
British industry lacks good management. There are not enough people around with good industrial experience. The country lacks civil servants capable of monitoring British industry. The National Enterprise Board is an organisation which assumes that there is a surplus of both kinds of people, whereas we know that there is a dearth of them.

Mr. Rooker: There is at the top.

Mr. Parkinson: The Government's thinking is based on the fact that there is a surplus. This House will create machinery which will be ill-manned and incapable of doing what is desired by the Government.
As for the Government's motives in their present policy, Government supporters have made it clear that their primary interest is the preservation of jobs. Not one member of the Opposition derives any pleasure out of seeing the unemployment figures rising. One of the myths that Government supporters repeat to themselves as they go to sleep is that the Conservative Members love high unemployment. We do not. We get no pleasure out of the prospect of men being out of work. However, we get no pleasure out of encouraging people to believe that they have a secure future when they will only be disappointed subsequently. This is where the Government are making their principal mistake. The Government listen almost exclusively to the TUC. The social contract was not discussed with the CBI.
Only today I was talking to the Institute of Directors about the new national insurance contributions. In that connection, I have to declare an interest, in that I am the leader of the parliamentary group dealing with this subject. For the first time in many years, the Institute of Directors has not been consulted about the incredibly complex network of national insurance contributions which has been set up. Many company directors could find themselves contributing under

three different headings, and many companies could find themselves paying seven or eight companies' contributions for the same directors. For almost the first time, the Institute of Directors has not been consulted by the Government.
Over and over again we are left with the feeling that this Government believe that the TUC is the repository of all worthwhile knowledge of industrial affairs and that if they please the TUC they please everyone who matters. But I suggest that the individual unions, which are the really significant bodies, instinctively do not do the right thing. They do the wrong thing. The secretary of the boilermakers' union, seeing that boiler making is going out of fashion, naturally sets out to make sure, because the jobs of his members depend on it, that the maximum number of people continue to make boilers, even if no one want to buy boilers. It is his job to ensure that there are the maximum number of jobs for boiler makers.
The TUC put at the top of its list the preservation of jobs. It does not matter whether an industry is in a decline or on the up-grade. It is essential to keep working in that industry the number who have always worked in it, and every effort must be made to make sure that the optimum number of jobs in the industry are maintained, regardless of whether that industry has a future or a past and no future.
This Government listen exclusively to people who are imbued with that motive. They do not find out where the jobs will be tomorrow. Their main concern is to protect the jobs which were profitable yesterday. This is at the heart of so many of our industrial problems. We have managements in declining industries fighting with unions about maintaining the optimum number of jobs in their industries. The net result is the opposite of what the unions want. The result is that the industries go into decline even more quickly because, at a time when they are under pressure, they are forced to employ more people than they need.
Individual unions which are members of the TUC have strong hearts and weak heads. Their instincts are to preserve the glories of yesterday. They now have a Government who are dedicated to supporting them in their ill-thought-out objectives.
Jack Kennedy, in one of his very best and most meaningful remarks, once said that an economy based on the apparently unrelated efforts of thousands of individual corporations, partnerships and individuals doing their best in the things that they knew best might not look efficient but was the most efficient basis for an economy that the world had yet worked out, because it was responsive and flexible. If the hon. Member for Perry Barr had his way, and Section 8 of the Industry Act was used more, it would do exactly the opposite of achieving the objectives of the Jack Kennedy-type economy. It would freeze people in uneconomic jobs. It would push into industry and into industrial management not commercial decisions but decisions on whether jobs could be preserved in this or that constituency. That would be the predominant feature—namely, whether we could keep the secretary general of the union representing the boiler makers happy regardless of whether in the national interest he should be unhappy. It would introduce into industry and into commerce a whole range of totally irrelevant and damaging considerations.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr and I can find some common ground. We both want to see the maximum number of people in meaningful, well-paid employment that will offer prospects. There is no difference between us on that score.
I hope that in my prolonged remarks—this is a matter which I care about passionately—I have perhaps given the hon. Gentleman cause to think that his way of going about these matters is the way that ensures that his and my objectives are frustrated. I just hope for his sake, and for the sake of the people about which he cares, working people throughout the country, that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not get their way. If they do, the very people they care about will suffer most.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) dealt somewhat cruelly with the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Craigen) about the workers' co-operative in Glasgow. However, I think it was an occasion when he was right to

do so. Nobody could take exception. My hon. Friend was pointing out an essential truth. He was trying to prove the fallacy of what the hon. Gentleman was putting to the House—namely, the theory that the salvation of the jobs of the people working for the Scottish Daily Express Group can be achieved by grasping at the idea of a workers' co-operative. That seems to be like throwing to a drowning man a life-raft with a hole in the bottom.
The hon. Member for Maryhill seemed to get carried away from the Glasgow scene. He suggested that the best thing for the country would be a national co-operative board. I think that those were his words. He suggested that co-operatives would be mushrooming throughout the country and that Britain's industrial problems would be solved if that were to happen. I do not know whether it is the late hour at which we are debating this matter or whether that is a flight of fancy on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but I find it hard to believe that he thinks that that is the best thing for the country. I can imagine no greater disaster than for the people who would be working in the so-called co-operatives to believe that co-operatives were salvation for the future. The future of the working people must be based on profitable industry which can pay high wages to those involved.
It seems that this debate is a dress rehearsal for the many debates that I am sure we shall have in the weeks ahead—I know that the Minister will play a prominent part in them—on the setting up of the National Enterprise Board, planing agreements and all the exciting matters to which we are looking forward so much. Rather like the threatrical dress rehearsal, this one is also sparsely attended. Never mind; perhaps it is good for all of us.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) opened the debate eloquently, but there was a certain lack of enthusiasm, or perhaps a lack of confidence that what he was saying was the salvation. However, he said one thing with very firm and clear conviction: that the Government and not industry will be in control of industry. In the whole Socialist thesis on industry, there is the most terrifying phrase. I can only imagine that the hon. Gentleman


intended it. We heard it many years ago, when he and I were probably still at school, when someone else claimed, "We are the masters now" with equally disastrous consequences although in a different context. If this is continued, I can only suggest that total disaster will result.
In putting forward red-blooded Socialism for industry, as the Government put before the electorate to some extent and which we shall see developed a little more as this Parliament goes on, the burden of proof that it is right for industry lies with the Government. I hope that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for Industry will do a little better than they did during the summer, when they trotted out a number of figures to prove that British industry had failed the nation.

Mr. Rooker: It has.

Mr. Grylls: They trotted out untruthful remarks, such as British industry having had subsidies of £1·5 million a day. The Secretary of State would not make a very good accountant. He forgot the other side of the balance sheet—the fact that British industry pays to the Government some £6 million a day in corporation tax. He also omitted to mention that the subsidies paid by Governments of all complexions have been for specific purposes, such as regional policy, and particular projects, such as Concorde. He was trying to make this the basis of his case for nationalisation. He must do better.
Neither can the Secretary of State point to the record of the nationalised industries. Everyone with a fair experience of electioneering during 1974—certainly my hon. Friends—will have found no difficulty in convincing the electorate that, whatever arguments there may be for nationalisation, the nationalised industries did not present a good example. There have been losses and write-offs of £5 billion since 1962, and daily losses during the current year of £4 million. I do not want to give the wrong impression. I do not say that this has been entirely the fault of the nationalised industries. One accepts that all Governments have held down those industries' prices. But it is because Governments can do this that a muddle results. Therefore, this does not prove that one Government or another are right,

but it proves that Governments should keep aside from industry and should not intervene except as an absolute necessity.
It is not very difficult to convince the average person—the floating person, as it were—that the nationalised industries are not among the most dynamic in Britain, to put it at its mildest. I want to quote just one industrialist, Sir Ronald Edwards, the Chairman of the Beecham Group. In a quite recent statement he said:
I am convinced on stronger grounds than propaganda that we should do all in our power to prevent the growth of industrial control by the Government, because there is every reason to believe that it would reduce not merely industrial efficiency but individual freedom.
I am sure that what he said is right. He went on to say that the appetite for intervention grew with what it fed upon. Having intervened in one field, the Government will find themselves forced to intervene in others. He said that as an industrialist, but as an industrialist who has led a nationalised industry for 10 years, so that he speaks with knowledge of the other side, as it were.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member quotes a former head of nationalised industry, but would he consider the remarks of Dr. Finniston, also the head of a nationalised industry, who openly advocates that it is fair game for the public to drag up an industry by its bootstraps, pouring in millions of pounds of public money, and that it should go back into private enterprise when it is making a profit? I can find one quotation for every one of his.

Mr. Grylls: We could spend a profitable night exchanging quotations, but Dr. Finniston was indicating that it would be better in the private sector——

Mr. Rooker: After we have salvaged it——

Mr. Grylls: I do not think this is very helpful, but I was saying that here is someone who has worked for 10 years in a nationalised industry and is not a crusty industrialist only from the private sector knowing nothing outside that but perhaps a unique sort of person who has spent parts of his working life in both sides of industry.

Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend will remember that the point which Dr. Finniston was making was that he felt the need for the discipline of outside shareholders in addition to the Government.


That is why he was suggesting that it would be healthy for the British Steel Corporation to have the BP solution.

Mr. Rooker: Only when it becomes profitable.

Mr. Grylls: My hon. Friend is right. The example of having some private shareholding would be good. It is no part of my case tonight to build it on Dr. Finniston or on anybody else, and certainly not on returning parts of nationalised industries to the private sector, because in some ways that is a fallow argument and we have a mixed economy of private and nationalised industries. To this extent I agree with the first few words of the fascinating document "The Regeneration of British Industry", in which the Government openly admit that we live in that situation.
I want to pluck out the industry which has been specifically selected to have its neck wrung in the spring: the shipbuilding industry. Many people would suppose that because it has been selected early in this Parliament for nationalisation it must have been failing the nation or that that is what the Government would like to suggest, but if one looks at the industry, as the Minister of State no doubt has done, and in his private moments must admit, it had a record order book of £1,426 million in August. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said something about the inefficiency of private industry, but one cannot say that about shipbuilding. In 1955, with 130,000 men, it produced 1·3 million tons of shipping, and in 1973, with only 69,000 men working in the industry, it produced 1·06 million tons. That is not a bad productivity record. It meant that there had been massive investment in a developing industry, and massive modernisation. This year—the year in which the industry's head is put on the chopping block by the Government—it will produce record shipbuilding figures of 1·5 million tons.
Where is the argument for nationalisation? We shall wait with interest to see whether the Minister of State gives us a glimpse in this dress rehearsal of the arguments which he will present when the Bill is introduced. However, I do not think that he has convinced the President of the boilermakers' union, Don McGarvey——

Mr. Rooker: It is Dan McGarvey. The hon. Gentleman cannot even get the name right.

Mr. Grylls: —who was very alarmed before the list of firms was announced that possibly Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, which was being run by a Texas firm, would be nationalised. He was very anxious about the matter and said on 1st August this year:
You cannot have a firm coming all the way from Texas to solve what seemed to be an impossible problem and then when things are going well nationalise it.
That deal was fixed up by the last Conservative Government to maintain employment and preserve a yard. Dan McGarvey evidently agrees with that, and quite rightly so.
The same could be said of the aircraft industry, which can hardly be said to be failing the nation in view of the exports it is making and has made over the last few years.
However, one might imagine that the true reason is that a massive number of Labour voters are in favour of nationalisation. But that does not give the Minister of State very good evidence in favour of nationalisation. We are told in a poll that 48 per cent. of Labour voters are against nationalisation, and that only 30 per cent. are in favour of it. Leaving aside whether they are Labour or Conservative, over two-thirds of voters declared their firm wish not to have further nationalisation. I felt sorry for many hon. Members opposite—and it is no good the Minister of State scowling and waving his hand—who at the last election proclaimed the advantages of nationalisation. They must have had a very difficult job on the doorsteps.
However, perhaps it is not too late. There may be hope. The axe of nationalisation and the threat of increased interference were well described by Sir Ronald Edwards in a speech. He said that interference feeds on itself and goes on increasing. If that threat can be removed, the confidence which has been sapping from industry over the last few months will return, and if the Government allow it to return by changing their policies they will be justified in taking the credit for it.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am glad to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at this late hour and to welcome you back to the Chair after what has been a sparkling day since half-past two.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I am pleased that I called the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marshall: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A number of important points have been made which have ranged widely over the question of general support to industry. There is every advantage in that. I am glad that the Minister of State, in his benign way, agrees with that and looks forward later to extending his repertoire to the full.
I wish to speak on the particular problems of the steel industry. In the Estimates there are one or two in-built problems, and I wish to join with my hon. Friends who have touched on some of the difficulties and drawbacks in the way in which the Industry Act 1972 is working as administered by the Government. I refer particularly to that part of Section 8 which includes the shareholding in the independent sector of the steel industry. It is the 2½ per cent. equity held in Dunford Hadfield Limited, of Sheffield. It is worth tracing to the House in a little detail how that equity shareholding came about and why it is of significance.
The 2½per cent. shareholding in that company was acquired fortuitously by taking over Brown Bailey, another Sheffield steelmaker. The Minister of State will recall that that company was to some degree a creature of the old attempt to rationalise the Sheffield steel industry when Government aid was made available.
Why do I single out what is, after all, a very small investment in that particular group? I do it for this reason. When we had the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry", in the list of companies shown as being put under the aegis of the NEB was Dunford Hadfield. It was listed with a Government shareholding of 2½ per cent. in the same breath as Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., a 100 per cent. subsidiary. In other words, it was

listed as a company which, to all intents and purposes, appeared, as I shall seek to show, to be ripe for State take-over if the NEB is, as many fear, a vehicle for just that exercise.
What was the result? Within days—I cannot prove that it was so, but it was no accident—the share price for that group fell spectacularly, to the extent that it felt obliged to issue a statement pointing out the limited nature of the shareholding, the fortuitous way that it had arisen, and the fact that it had no intention of going to the Government at that or any foreseeable time in future for money. It is an unfortunate chain of events when even that type of shareholding is seen to have that range of consequences.
I have described that situation in a little detail, because my real concern is that the Industry Act 1972 is not being used in the way that was intended. It could possibly be of great value to our economy. I believe that there is a place for the Government of the day, whoever they may be, to act as bankers for industry in trouble on prescribed terms. I look to funds being made available on a loan or equity basis which can be floated off. In other words, I seek disengagement as soon as practically possible.
The difficulty—I have direct evidence from my own talks with independent steelmakers—is that they are reluctant to go to the Government for funds, because they take the example that I gave as evidence that they will automatically be branded as yet other companies on the shopping list and on the NEB route to outright nationalisation.
We have touched on nationalisation fairly widely. Therefore, I believe that the Minister of State could do this House and the country a great service if he would confirm, or give a pledge, that nationalisation of the independent sector of the steel industry will not be carried out. That would be in accordance with pledges made in this House by a distinguished predecessor of his, Richard Marsh. To many people in the steel industry who are going through a very worrying and difficult time, such a pledge would be of vital importance.
I make this point in the context of a desperate steel shortage in this country, a situation where steel today is being produced in a smaller total quantity than


a decade ago when the whole industry was privately owned and was being freely criticised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In this situation it is vital that confidence should be instilled into the independent producers, many of them small specialist alloy steel producers, who have shown consistent success over the last five years or so since the large nationalised sector grew up, and whose record of efficiency, profit and, indeed, general ability to serve the nation is an outstanding example against the nationalised sector.
Finally, I deal with the nationalised sector. If I implied criticism in comparing the independent with the nationalised sector, I should make it clear that I join those who feel that companies such as the British Steel Corporation are operating with one hand tied behind their backs. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in some generally good-humoured remarks, let himself go badly when he talked of the "master-servant relationship" between the public and independent sectors. I do not wish to hear of any such relationship in industry. "Partnership" is the word of the day, and that is the aspect that we should pursue.
But in the British Steel Corporation there are grounds for grave concern. We can see the terrible price it pays for Government intervention. I declare an interest in that I spent 16 years in the industry, leaving only at the time of nationalisation to seek my political fortune because I was so passionately opposed to nationalisation. Many of us feel that there comes a time when the "political football" argument cannot be pursued. Therefore, despite my passionate convictions, I have concluded that we must help to make the British Steel Corporation a success.
So I return to what the hon. Member for Perry Barr said about Dr. Finniston's comments. Experience shows that, having set about rationalisation, which is the primary justification for nationalisation, the next question which must be tackled is how best that industry can be run. What Dr. Finniston was suggesting was that greater flexibility and autonomy— in other words, a greater break with Government control and Civil Service intervention—was what the industry needed.
I deplore suggestions that men of the calibre of Dr. Finniston and other managers of the British Steel Corporation are being created into a new breed of bogy-men. These people came in to do a job, or have served the industry for many years, with no axe to grind and no direct financial interest. They are, therefore, putting forward in good faith what they believe to be in the long-term interests of the industry.
It is this kind of long-term view that we must accept from the management of our great companies, whether nationalised or independent. This is what is now being so seriously affected by the passionate yen of Labour Members for State planning at all costs. I go along with the view that, in many ways, on both sides of the House we are striving for common objectives of full and meaningful employment, a better economy, and a sounder and greater Britain. If we are arguing about the means, we are entitled to respect one other's views. But now that the election hubbub has died down, the time has surely come when it is no longer necessary to trot out our performing sea lions, when we can look dispassionately, coldly and, above all critically at the best way of running our industry. By any objective study, by any objective attempt to see what is best in the long term, I cannot see how the depth of consideration by the Government will help our country. I hope that the Minister will be able to set our minds at rest.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Tom King: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his success in getting first place in this debate. It has had great advantage for all of us.
Perhaps the Minister of State and I share a certain disappointment that those interested in religious matters were so loquacious earlier in the day. Those matters seemed to be still before us when, by a slip of the tongue, the hon. Member for Perry Barr referred to "financial and monastery" matters. That was reminiscent of our previous debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) on the ingenious way in which, if not actually hitching his wagon to a star, he succeeded in attaching himself


to a satellite in a rather different orbit and thus combined his subject with this debate. I welcome the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. Although we had a characteristically vigorous contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who spread his attack rather widely and included me in the range of his bullets, the contributions have been sincere and worth while.
The note which the speeches struck, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, was that of a sincere attempt to see our way as a country through these problems. It was exactly the way in which the debate should proceed. The hon. Member for Perry Barr managed to obtain this debate under Class IV, Vote 7, of the Supplementary Estimates dealing with the use of Section 8 of the Industry Act.
I had intended to suggest that this section was being used in a way never intended, and not permitted, by the Act. I thought that I might be challenged on that by the Minister. My work has been done for me, because the hon. Gentleman said that the section was being used in ways never contemplated by the Government which introduced it. We have already had a clear example of that with the Court Line episode. Then the Secretary of State proudly boasted that he was able to use the Conservative Government's legislation to achieve results. He was questioned on whether he would ensure that the shares of Court Line would be offered back to the public at an appropriate date. It may have been the Minister of State who, on that occasion, had to give the answer that the Act would have to be amended and made it clear that in its present form it did not enable the Government to achieve the sort of ambitions which they might have.
I regret that the hon. Member for Perry Barr suggested that there was somewhere a victory to be gained in the current economic situation. He said that, whereas industry had been in charge, the Government were now in charge. If there is one thing which we have learned it is that there is no question of a victory in these matters. There has to be a willing and voluntary partnership based on faith and trust. Any attempt by one

side to say, "We are the masters now" leads to a spirit of divisive distrust which will utterly destroy any chance the country has of pulling through its problems. I hope that on reflection the hon. Member will feel that that was not really the message he wanted to give.
The economic situation is serious enough, and it is against that background that the use of Section 8 is critical. We are facing an industrial situation almost without parallel. The Minister will know, probably better than anyone, because he is privy to a lot of information from companies, just how serious is the liquidity position of many companies. The Chancellor made this abundantly clear in his Budget speech.
The hon. Gentleman recognised that many British companies face an almost fatal squeeze between the pressure of taxation, pressure of inflation, pressure of high wage demands and pressure of rising raw material prices. All these things have been welling up to create quite unprecedented difficulties which, as anyone with on-going commercial experience knows, are quite unknown in previous experience.
It is against that background that it is so important to know what the attitude of the Government will be. If there is one important message which should go out from the debate tonight, it is a clearer indication from the Minister of State of what the attitude of the Government is going to be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge and Mailing made yet another well-researched and perceptive speech. It is becoming indicative of one of his speeches that someone disappears from the official box to find the answer to a question my hon. Friend has posed and which the Department had not thought would be asked. It happened on Monday night, when we were discussing the Post Office. He made a penetrating speech then. This is a hallmark of the way in which my hon. Friend studies these matters seriously. I know that the Minister of State will not have objected to the depth of the questions asked by my hon. Friend, and I hope that he will answer them.
My hon. Friend made the point that what the Government's attitude will be is unclear. We have read in the Press about a number of matters, but they have


never been announced in the House. We have read about Government assistance which will be given in one form or another, whether by guarantee of bank lending, by loan or by grant. We have read that some action is to be taken, but we do not have any clear pattern that we can identify, nor any clear criteria by which it will be applied.
I hope that the Minister of State can clarify the position, because undoubtedly British industry is in a weak position. The question is: what are the Government going to do about it? Are they going to approach the situation in a spirit of constructive support, of anxiety to help industry overcome its acute temporary difficulties? Or do they see the situation as a Heaven-sent opportunity to exploit it for their own party political advantage?
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) referred to the need for confidence in industry, and the reluctance of companies to talk to the Government. This underlines some of the problems that the Government will have in reaching planning agreements. So many companies feel lack of trust in how Governments will use the information they supply and in what they will do. If I were in the Minister of State's shoes, I would feel that my biggest problem was to overcome this lack of confidence and trust and to get them to speak freely to the Government. But one can excuse British industry its lack of confidence. What is it to believe?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Statement, spoke in a ringing phrase about believing in a vigorous, alert and profitable private sector. The Prime Minister has talked of a mixed economy, in which both the public and private sectors will be successful. But it took the Prime Minister himself to point out that the Chancellor's reference to the private sector had been taken from the Secretary of State for Industry's White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry". No one had ever dreamed or supposed that a White Paper produced by the Secretary of State would talk about a profitable, vigorous and alert private sector. I think that goes some way to indicate how deep is the disbelief that that is the Secretary of State's attitude.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South spoke vigorously but

very much to the point about the folly of co-operatives if they are built on sand. There is no point in creating a co-operative just for the sake of having one. It must have real purpose. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). Any hon. Member will appreciate the cause of another hon. Member who is fighting for his constituents, but one of the most depressing things for the hon. Gentleman must be the knowledge that the Government have offered money provided it is matched pound for pound from outside sources.
One of the obvious sources of that money was other trade unions, but the hon. Gentleman knows that they have been singularly unforthcoming, because they have looked at the project and realised that it is an open sink. They have realised that their money might provide short-term relief in terms of employment, but they know that it will not provide a long-term salvation or prospects for the people employed.
Firms hear the Chancellor on the one hand calling for a vigorous, profitable and alert private sector, while on the other hand they see the Secretary of State for Industry apparently going off on a line on his own and pursuing these figments of co-operatives without any regard for the reality of our current industrial problems.
I remember a friend of mine at school who was once described as living in a world of his own in which he had great influence. When one sees the Secretary of State pursuing some of his propects one realises their total irrelevance to the main scale of our economic and industrial situation which is his main responsibility.
I do not mean this in any personal sense, because I know that their views are deeply held, but when one looks at the team of Ministers at the Department one realises the scale of the problem. Firms in the private sector wonder whether they can look to the Department for real help, support and sympathy in their difficulties when they realise that they have to talk to a Minister who has said—I think within the past year—that "our aim is to eliminate the basis of capitalism in this country".
I respect the Minister of State as a person, and I know the strength of his feeling in this matter, but does he think that kind of statement can give private firms confidence that he is a person to whom they can talk and feel that he is on their side? That, in a sentence, encapsulates the difficulty facing private industry.
If it ever appears that the Government intend to support private industry in the present situation, there are howls of wrath from belong the Gangway, and early-day motions are tabled. This happened when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster suggested a scheme that might help private industry without throwing it into the arms of the Government. One might have reservations about how effective this assistance will be, but one is bound to notice the resentment amongst many of the Minister's supporters at the suggestion that money should be produced from a source that would mean the Government could not use the opportunity to exert the maximum influence on companies.
I move on to the question of the NEB. We see Section 8 and the NEB as items which are likely to work in parallel. I think it has already been suggested that there will be this relationship. We are conscious that the Paymaster-General, who is one of the few members of the Government with direct industrial experience, at an earlier date described the NEB as a dinosaur. He has often drawn attention to the appalling problems of bringing into the Government, the Civil Service and the Department of Industry anything like the sort of expertise and professional management skills which are needed in these fields.
Any Member of Parliament, or anyone in my own minor capacity in the last Government, who has seen the problem of recruiting chairmen and senior management to nationalised industries will know what an acute problem it is. Very often they are thankless jobs. They are not particularly well paid, and these people are very much in the public eye. Consider, for instance, the sort of ridicule and abuse which the Chairman of the Post Office has to endure and the letters which he receives when one old lady's letter takes three days to arrive and she thinks it is a matter for direct criticism of the chairman.
These pressures which are borne by chairmen of nationalised industries may seem small, but they are very real, and they are much greater than those which affect chairmen of outside industries. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel said about the quite unjustified criticism which the hon. Member for Perry Barr made of the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation. If one has any real understanding of the difficulties and pressures of that job, one deplores the sort of easy criticism which any backbench Member, in the privilege of this House, can make. We should be very careful in the way we use that privilege, of which we should be very jealous, and not accuse people in tough jobs who work in extremely difficult circumstances.
If I were a potential adviser to the Government under the NEB and I were approached to advise on possible activities, I could not ignore the way in which the previous extremely experienced advisers of the Industrial Development Advisory Board have been treated. I put down a Question last week, which I believe the Minister of State answered, asking whether any changes were proposed. It is an insult to keep the same people on that board and studiously ignore every bit of advice which they give. The Minister challenged the amount of advice which it was suggested had been accepted. He will know that it is only certain items which reach parliamentary scrutiny. We are not aware of most of the other cases, in respect of which quarterly reports are received, as to how many times advice has been given and accepted.
The Minister knows the main cases, which are very much the subject of concern, where advice was requested. My hon. Friend mentioned them. In one case, the Court Line, advice was not even sought. In the case of the co-operative it was asked, and the advice, I understand, was strongly against, but the Government still felt that it was necessary to proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) mentioned shipbuilding. It is interesting to reflect that when the Secretary of State for Industry was in the Opposition he tramped the country saying what a disaster the shipbuilding industry was and criticised the management, but when he came down to the serious proposals for


the nationalisation of shipbuilding one of the first things he did was to make clear that the management would be expected to stay on because it would be needed. That, of course, was an honest realisation of the fact that there is no one else —no Ministers, no members of the Civil Service and no one in the Department— who could run a shipyard. The Government will be dependent on people with practical experience. The Minister of State could not run a shipyard.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric Heffer): How does the hon. Member know? At least I have worked in one, which is more than he can say.

Mr. King: I have worked in a printing works, which the Minister has not. The Minister must accept that the Government will be dependent on the expertise, and it lies within the industries.
I was interested to see that in the context of worker control and worker participation Mr. Lyons, of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association, said that it was disaster to talk in such terms. He said that the unions were not ready for that, they were not prepared and were ill-equipped to cope with such a situation. If the hon. Member for Perry Barr feels that the unions have within their organisation a great reservoir of people capable of running major companies and industries he should realise that that is not the view of the Secretary of State for Industry in the case of the shipbuilding industry. The right hon. Gentleman has made clear there that the management would be needed in any nationalisation. The necessary outside reservoir of expertise does not exist.
Someone with much greater experience of the economy and industry than I told a group of us only yesterday that in the serious seituation in which we find ourselves only three things matter—manufacturing exports, invisible exports and North Sea oil. The whole economy at the moment is on a knife edge. We are at the mercy of a number of outside events, the only way in which we shall regain control of our economic destiny is by success in three spheres.
Just when all the efforts of the Secretary of State and his colleagues should be concentrated on these objectives they are indulging in divisive doctrinaire

experiments in industrial reorganisation, workers' co-operatives and the backing of losers. Everything we have discussed tonight—regional policy, social policy, including the building of hospitals and schools, and everything else—depends upon the wealth we can create, retain and invest in this country. We have to earn our living in the world. The Government could not have picked a worse time to indulge in these activities.
The aims and ambitions of all hon. Members depend upon the success of public and private industry, and without that success all else is dust. Against that background, the attitude of the Government, and of the Department of Industry in particular is crucial. I hope that the Minister of State will address himself seriously to the question, as my hon. Friends have done, and do something to restore the confidence of industry that it can look to the Government for support and encouragement at a crucial time, to ensure that the private sector is indeed vigorous, alert and profitable.

1.0 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): I am amazed at the vigour of hon. Members at this time of the morning. One o'clock in the morning is not my best time for debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked me a little earlier, "Is there anything you want?", and I replied, "Yes— to go home".
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) not only on the vigour of his speech but on speaking from the Opposition Front Bench for the first time. I congratulate him on being, like me, in the unenviable position of speaking at this this time of the morning.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter under discussion. It is regrettable that he was not able to make his speech at about 3.45 p.m. yesterday. We could have had a much better debate, not that I am criticising anything that has been said, but because we could have had the maximum publicity in the country. The issues are of the maximum importance, and need the fullest discussion.
Like me, most hon. Members do not want to be here all night, even though they like to take part in debates. Ministers, who have desks to go to in the


morning, have no feeling of elation about being here at any time of the night unnecessarily.
Conservative Members are amazing. I have the impression from their speeches that all the calamities that have come upon British industry—lack of investment, liquidity problems and so on—have happened since the Labour Government took office in March. They know that that is not true. We have been discussing the matter seriously, and that sort of nonsense should be removed from the debate immediately.
It is self-evident that over a couple of decades there has been a failure in British industry to invest enough. In 1971 investment for each worker in British manufacturing industry was less than half what it was in France, Japan and the United States, and well below that in Germany or Italy. In spite of the measures since then, we have still lagged behind. Investment in 1972 and 1973 was significantly less than under a Labour Government in 1970. Therefore, to suggest that all the problems of lack of investment have arisen because of the Labour Government is not on.
When it comes to making effective use of our manufacturing equipment, we have been less successful than most of our competitors. Funds that should have been invested to improve and modernise manufacturing industries have been deployed elsewhere. During the past 10 years the rate of direct overseas investment by British firms has more than trebled.
I do not claim that the Hudson Institute's report is a bible. I do not argue that the conclusions of that report are necessarily acceptable either to me or to the Government, although it is a very interesting report. The Hudson report points out that our rate of investment has lagged behind that of our European rivals. According to the report, in 1972 the United Kingdom devoted 18 per cent. of its gross domestic product to investment, while Italy devoted 20 per cent., Holland 23 per cent., France and Germany 26 per cent. and Japan 35 per cent. On the basis of that report, it is clear that our investment rate has lagged behind those of all the other developed countries except the United States.
The Government are determined to deal with that situation. Revelant proposals

have been made in the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, and members of the Labour Party during the election made it clear that we intended to set up a National Enterprise Board and to establish a system of planning agreements.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater, in the most bland way, says that the Minister of State should tell us tonight that the policy upon which the Government were elected will be abandoned. I shall not do that. During the election we said we would deal with the problems of British industry. We meant that, and we intend to carry out the policy upon which we were elected.
The hon. Gentleman said that we must give confidence to private industry. That is an amazing statement. One would imagine that Ministers in the Department of Industry never met private industrialists, that there was a long line of trade unionists entering the doors of the Department of Industry and that industrialists never came. I probably meet more industrialists for discussion of their problems than I meet trade unionists. The doors of the Department of Industry are open to industrialists the whole time. There is no question of our not wanting to discuss their problems with them. We have met members of the CBI. If members of the CBI and industrialists are not convinced by what we say and are not prepared to co-operate, that is most regrettable. But I do not think it is true to say that.
Industrialists have become frightened by the type of campaign being pursued by the hon. Gentleman during and before the General Election. For example, the previous Government constantly talked about the list of firms which we intended to bring under public ownership. During the election campaign, material of this kind was fed into the constituencies saying that we were about to take almost everything into public ownership. That was not true, but I can understand why, as a result of that campaign, industrialists became upset and frightened.
One Opposition Member suggested that we should stop playing politics. I agree. But that means accepting the word of the Government about what we intend to do to deal with the problems in British


industry by means of the policies on which we were elected.

Mr. Grylls: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government have changed their mind from what they said in the White Paper about their intention to take into public ownership large sections of manufacturing industry? Has that policy now been dropped?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) should listen more carefully. I said that we intended to carry out the policy which was in the White Paper and in our manifesto. I also said that there was never any list. The idea that we intended to take over 100 firms, just like that, was not true. But, in my view, it is that which has led to some companies feeling a certain amount of disquiet, to say the least, and I can understand that.

Mr. Tom King: I apologise for quoting the hon. Gentleman, but I seem to remember him saying that his aim was to eliminate the basis of capitalism in this country. He said that in supporting the motion which subsequently was defeated at a Labour Party conference, and that there should be a specific number of 25 companies. Perhaps other people read the newspapers, including industrialists, who are aware of this attitude of mind among certain Ministers. Might not that undermine their confidence in the Government?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Labour Party is a democratic organisation. Once we have decided at our conference a line of policy, and once it is incorporated in our manifesto and in Government White Papers, that is the policy upon which members of the Government and of the party base themselves. The fact that I wish to see eventually the total elimination of the capitalist system has nothing to do with the policy upon which we have been elected, and it has nothing to do with our written documents.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that there were many voices in his own party saying, long before their owners became Ministers, that in no circumstances would they ever agree to any piece of legislation like the 1972 Act. But they administered that Act, even though some of them disagreed with it previously. That is democracy and democratic politics. The hon. Gentle-

man should not try to push that sort of door and suggest that that makes people uncomfortable. That is taking matters too far.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt out the Government's policy last week at the Labour Party conference when, talking about the National Enterprise Board, he said:
I believe that we have found the right approach—which for a generation we failed to find—to the problem of securing enough investment, and investment where it is most needed, in the form in which it is needed. This is a new and selective instrument for creating and financing investment where more generalised financial policies have failed. And where goes State money for investment, goes also public accountability and an appropriate public share in the equity. In place of hit-or-miss financial measures, based on vague hopes that somehow finance created will find its way into buildings and machinery and research and development, we shall inject public money, case by case, and plant by plant, where it is needed for exports or modernisation and to create new jobs in the regions.
When the policy was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister he said that it was not only good Socialist doctrine but, when the City puts in its money, good capitalist doctrine to suggest that there should be some accountability as to where the money was going. That is precisely what the Government are proposing.

Mr. Tom King: The Minister has fairly said that he meets a lot of industrialists who come to the Department. In a minor capacity I have knowledge that that is true. The problem is that the Department tends to meet the people with problems. The Prime Minister has said that the money will be put where it is needed and where it can be most effective. The problem is that the money tends to go to those with the biggest problems. They may represent the dying industries, the losers that are on the way out. How does the Minister suggest that the Government can identify the winners and ensure that the money goes to the winners? They are the people who are doing all right but who do not have the confidence to get involved with Government. They may be the people with whom the greatest opportunities lie.

Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Gentleman and his party had stopped making rubbishy noises about planning agreements many industrialists would have been


happy to discuss planning agreements with the Government. That would not necessarily be—I hope that it would not be—with firms faced with difficulties. That is why we need to have planning agreements. We need to get right the location of industry along with the financial backing for the location and the investment required. Those matters must be based upon discussions with the Government and the trade unions. The agreements will be between the Government and the companies concerned.
Planning agreements operate in a number of countries. We are talking about not Eastern Europe but Western democratic capitalist countries. Planning agreements are operating successfully in many Western countries. Conservative Members have not done British industry any good by the campaign that they have developed not only against the NEB—I can understand that campaign —but against the concept of planning agreements. We believe that we have the answers provided that people are prepared to discuss their problems with us sensibly and honestly. I think that the Prime Minister was right when he said that the NEB was the biggest leap forward in economic thinking and economic policy since the war.

Mr. Tom King: Since when?

Mr. Heffer: Since the Second World War. Between the two world wars there was the Keynesian doctrine. That emerged not from the Conservative Party but from the recession and the ensuing crisis. It had to be developed to save industry and to deal with unemployment. I do not deny Mr. Macmillan's policy when he was Prime Minister—the policy of the middle way. To some extent that policy was related to the Keynesian doctrine-. Mr. Macmillan was the only economic thinker in the Tory Party who had any ideas on how to begin to deal with the problems of industry.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Mr. Nigel Lawson (Blaby) rose——

Mr. Heffer: No, I shall not give way. It is now 20 minutes past one o'clock. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) came in towards the end of the debate. I do not wish to give way to anyone who has come in only for the end

of the debate. Some hon. Members have been here throughout the debate, and if they wish to intervene I shall willingly give way. It is getting late. Some serious questions have been put to me——

Mr. Lawson: I have been here for an hour.

Mr. Heffer: —and I should endeavour to reply to them.

Mr. Lawson: Get on with it.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman really ought to stop being rude. He should learn, having returned to the Chamber again, to contain himself and to behave in a civilised fashion. I have seen him in the House for some time, and I have yet to see him behave in a decent, civilised manner during any debate in the House.
I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley). It is true that I went to the box to consult a departmental official, but that was to clear up for my own benefit the point raised about NVT and Meriden. The position is that the £8 million for NVT asked for in the order— which has quite rightly been withdrawn at present because there are problems which we are endeavouring to sort out— was quite separate from the money advanced by the Conservative Government—£4·8 million. The £4.9 million for Meriden was in addition to the £8 million for NVT. I hope that I have clarified the position about that money.
On the question of co-operatives in general, a number of hon. Members spoke as though the idea of producer co-operatives was a totally uncharted water and that there had never been any producer co-operatives previously.

Mr. Tom King: I did not say that.

Mr. Heffer: That was more or less suggested. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not say it, but some of his hon. Friends said that these were uncharted waters. I think that those were the exact words.
The facts are that producer cooperatives have existed for many decades. If we examined the position we should find that whole numbers of these were formed under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. I think that about


30 producer co-operatives are in operation at present. Therefore, it is wrong to say that these co-operatives are new as such. As a Government, we have suggested financial aid in certain cases to certain worker co-operatives. This has arisen out of the situation which developed in a number of companies.

Mr. Stanley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point entirely and I accept that producer co-operatives as such are not new. But as he himself acknowledged, what is wholly new is an offer of public funds to a co-operative. The points that he has not been able to answer so far are these. Exactly what is the legal status of that co-operative? In whom, within that co-operative lies the legal liability for the assets? Who has the responsibility legally, within the Companies Acts or outside them, for the management of the co-operative, and for those who are employed in it? What sort of normal statutory protection do people have in a co-operative compared with what they would have if they were working in a normally incorporated body?

Mr. Heffer: The co-operatives concerned have been having discussions with the co-operative movement. They have drawn up constitutions which are very similar to those of existing co-operatives. That will put them very much on the same basis as the existing co-operatives, so the protection will be similar to that of other co-operatives. They have not just done this out of the blue. Obviously they have had lengthy consultations and have gone into the whole legal basis. I am certain that they will be happy, sooner or later, to let the whole world see their constitutions, and so on, and how the undertakings will operate.
I shall deal with the Government's attitude towards the three applications from worker co-operatives. The Scottish Daily News and Kirkby are under Section 7 and Meriden under Section 8. The Government have taken specially into account the importance of these projects as experiments in industrial organisation. They are of great potential significance for industry generally, as well as for the determination and enthusiasm of the workers concerned and for their willingness to assume responsibility for making these projects successes.
In the Government's view, these factors provide important reasons for assisting

certain workers' co-operatives. In addition to those reasons, there are important employment consequences in the case of the Scottish Daily News and Kirkby, in view of the high male unemployment in Glasgow and Liverpool. There is the export potential for the motor cycle industry in the case of Meriden.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke as if the Government had totally ignored, overthrown, and got rid of the viability criteria. If we had done so, and the viability criteria did not come into our thinking at all, there are a number of other cases which I personally would be much more sympathetic towards and could help more than I have been able to, precisely because we operate under the viability criteria laid down in the 1972 Act.
That is not spelt out in the Act but there was a criterion which has been accepted as that which is worked upon. We are not, in that sense, working upon a criterion different from that of the previous Government, but we cannot give support only on the basis of viability. One has also to take into account employment, and I understand clearly that we cannot keep people in employment when there is no market for their goods. That is perfectly understandable; otherwise, if there is a massive recession, there could be between two and three million workers kept in employment without a market for their goods.
On the other hand, we, as a Government, are not going to allow a situation to develop where workers are put out of work purely on market considerations without endeavouring to deal with that in a way different from that in which it has been done in the past.
Unfortunately, I cannot deal with all the points raised, but I will try to deal with those raised by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, whose speech was interesting, well-documented, and of a kind which makes most Ministers shudder, because they are crossing swords with someone who has done his homework. His point was about Scientific and Medical Instruments Limited. As my right hon. Friend's Press statement on 22nd October made clear, the Government intended to explore the best way to secure the firm future of the scientific and medical instrument activities of the George Kent group, which would be


hived off into a separate company, Scientific and Medical Instruments Ltd. This company would face difficulties at its inception, and, in view of its importance, my right hon. Friend agreed to make available a bank loan under Section 8 to enable SMI to continue in business normally while arrangements are worked out to meet the long-term needs. As announced, the guarantee will come into effect only on the formation of the company, and it is currently stipulated as a maximum of £1·25 million. I cannot go beyond that.
On the question of Alfred Herbert, the Government have agreed to guarantee——

Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister of State confirm that the guarantee to SMI is still conditional on the successful acquisition of the George Kent Group by Brown, Boveri?

Mr. Heffer: With regard to Brown, Boveri, the workers felt that this was the best solution.

Mr. Tom King: What about the Secretary of State?

Mr. Heffer: If the workers, management and shareholders approve it, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should say that the Secretary of State is wrong. Anyone can change his mind. The person who never changes his mind never does anything. That is a fair observation in relation to any Minister. If a Minister cannot change his mind when new facts are placed before him, there must be something wrong with him.
No new Government money has been involved with regard to George Kent. At a meeting on 14th November the shareholders accepted the proposals.
It is most regrettable that I cannot deal with all the points which have been raised. I have spoken for much too long, and there are other debates to follow this one. We have had a very good innings on this debate. I apologise for speaking at such length, but many issues have been raised.

Orders of the Day — OFFSHORE OIL (CONSTRUCTION SITES)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North

(Mr. Fletcher), may I indicate to him that on the subject he wishes to raise he will, I trust, avoid discussing the details of the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill. It will save a lot of trouble if he does.

1.32 a.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There are a number of items in the Consolidated Fund which are of great importance, but I suggest that the item in the Supplementary Estimate which relates to the Department of Energy and to the £7 million for development of sites for offshore oil production platforms is of critical importance to the whole of the United Kingdom and to the United Kingdom economy. There are one or two questions about the estimate which I should like to raise.
I should like to know to some extent how the figure in the Supplementary Estimate has been arrived at. How many further sites are necessary, remembering that in August this year the Department of Energy estimated that about another five sites would probably be necessary to produce the capacity for the production of concrete platforms? I wonder whether the Minister could identify those five sites and tell us which areas will be affected by the decisions and calculations which form part of the estimate.
I should like to know how many platforms are considered necessary by the Department because, referring to the statement made last August, the estimate by the Department then was that between 55 and 80 plaforms would be necessary by 1980. That statement suggested that the final figure would be nearer the upper limit. That was based on a calculation that nine orders would be necessary for each year from 1976 to 1980, a further 45 platforms, in addition to those already built or being constructed at that time, about 20, so what was being talked about in August was about 65 platforms for the North Sea.
The Department estimated that a platform could produce about 5 million tons of oil annually. Therefore, with 65 platforms—I apologise for the arithmetic that I am giving the Minister, but I am sure that he is well aware of it—each producing, say, 5 million tons of oil, we


are talking about production of 325 million tons of oil a year by the early 1980s.
Various factors must be brought into the calculation, not least the Government's Brown Book of 21st May this year, which referred to production by 1980 of between 100 million and 140 million tons of oil per annum. Looking at these figures, the Brown Book is referring to about half the capacity that the number of platforms referred to are capable of producing.
Can the Minister reconcile these figures with his Department's platform and production programmes? Can he reconcile these figures with his Department's depletion policy? Is the target still self-sufficiency? Or has the Government's ineptitude doubled the production target deliberately to pay for the excessive overseas borrowings being made against our North Sea assets?
It is not enough to allow gas finds and construction delays in attempting to reconcile these figures. The gap between the estimates of oil production and platform capacity requires further explanation on the basis of the figures that the Department presented earlier this year. This is necessary if we are to have confidence in the Government's estimates of the number of sites and platforms, the target for oil production, and the estimates presented to us today.
If the Department can identify the remaining five sites to which I have referred, how will they be acquired? Obviously not by the existing planning procedures, which have not been revised in any way by the Bill to which I have been told I should not refer. It is a national tragedy that during this year the Government have not brought forward proposals to amend the planning procedures generally.
If the Government have the courage to identify these new sites now, they could start a helpful and informal series of discussions with those who are likely to be affected by these planning applications and new sites and put at peace other areas which imagine or have reason to believe that developments may take place in their parts of the country. I believe that positive action is called for if confidence in planning arrangements is to be regained and time is to be saved in developing our North Sea resources.
The Department of Energy is in a unique position in Government circles. It has the opportunity to be the only Department of State that may operate at a profit. It could pay its own way and perhaps in time win the Queen's Award to Industry.
There are several ways in which this might just be achieved. It is recognised that platforms built in the United Kingdom save on the balance of payments. The British-built platform is worth about £60 million in orders to British industry. A platform built abroad costs our balance of payments about £45 million. These pieces of equipment could have a tremendous effect on the balance of payments. So the importance of how this figure of £7 million was reached is far greater than might appear.
If the Department operates efficiently by giving the correct answers to some of my questions, it can save money by avoiding delays in the North Sea. Each installed platform represents a benefit annually to our balance of payments of £185 million. All this financial benefit can be won by the Department. It is time that it introduced a serious programme of energy conservation throughout the Departments of Government, in industry, by domestic users and even in the Palace of Westminster, where we maintain a temperature well above what most of us like to live in. I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to discuss conservation proposals by the Department.
The Government have indulged in a policy of huge overseas borrowing which has put a burden of interest charges on our economy for many years to come. They should consider forward selling of even the current operations in the North Sea to ease the burden. This point was raised in Tuesday's Scotsman.
These are some of the areas in which the Department's presence should be felt, not in nationalisation and trying to run the oil industry but in acting as a catalyst so that all North Sea operations and maximising of resources can be achieved at the right pace and in the right way, for the benefit of everyone in the country.

1.43 a.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Alexander Fletcher), suggested that the Department of Energy might be


the only Government Department to show a profit. But it is much more likely to do that, or to be the cause of profit in others, if it gets rid of the concept of the British National Oil Corporation, which will cost £3,000 million at the start and then a continuing sum for absolutely no added control over the industry.
I feel more trepidation than usual tonight because of your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we may not mention the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill. I was not aware of this circumscription of my right to speak, and my speech will no doubt be considerably shorter as a result.
There is still a great reluctance in certain quarters—not by the Government— to relate that part of the gravity of our economic situation caused by world oil prices—the price has increased fivefold in just over a year and we shall this year have to pay £1,200 million more for 5 per cent. less oil—to the crisis measures that we must take to solve the problem. We are in an emergency and must be prepared to use emergency means. This is a time, as rarely in peace time, for making sure that we get our national priorities right.
Bluntly, our absolute priorites are not the preservation of bird life, of rare or unsual flora and fauna, or even of a few isolated spots of natural beauty or of an agreeable and antiquated way of life in certain specified areas. Such matters are important to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. They are important in varying degree in different places. They are not, however, the most important matters. The most important matters are our absolute national priorities. The first is to ensure that we can extract as much oil as we want, as fast as possible, namely the equivalent of at least self-sufficiency by 1980. Secondly we must ensure maximum British participation in oil platform building and all the related activities.
There are those in Scotland, and I am not thinking of the Government, who say, or imply, that there is something sordid, disgracefully materialistic, or short-sighted about this elevation of the importance of oil and the priority development of sites for its exploitation. What such people must realise is that it is no use preserving the flora and

fauna of our country if, by doing so, we help destroy the economic life of the country. It is no use preserving aspects of scenic beauty if, by doing so, we leave the country in financial ruins from which we may view such scenic beauty.
If we in the United Kingdom are to maintain our democratic values, the preservation of beautiful landscapes is a luxury, while the preservation of economic strength is a necessity. I am strongly in favour of the principle which the Government are maintaining through a number of Bills, with regard to construction sites in particular. I refer to the aim of maximising the speed and efficiency with which these sites are got under way.
While I am sure that this end is the right one, I am equally sure that the means which the Government sometimes employ to achieve that end are wrong. There was a powerful piece by Professor Bradley on this in the Scotsman of 23rd November which put it very well. No doubt these matters will be amended in Committee. I believe that certain emergency measures for the acquisition of land with regard to construction sites should be exercised. I would be much happier about the exercise of such powers if we could get from the Government, as I believe we must, unbreakable assurances regarding the restoration of land as soon as may be after the oil platform construction rôle is finished.
When the Minister of State, Scottish Office, introduced the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill he said that the Bill
ensures the ultimate restoration or adaptation of the sites."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1110.]
If the Minister had stopped at the word "restoration" I would have been reasonably, though not wholly, assured. By adding the words "or adaptation" he gave the sentence an interpretation so wide as to make it meaningless. The addition of those words could be taken to give the Government powers, without reference to the original landowner, and without any connection with the purposes for which the land was acquired from the original owner, to adapt the use of the land, once its construction site role was ended, to almost anything else the Government happened to think of.
It is right in principle that the Government should acquire, through legislation, power to acquire land at accelerated speed — and with some considerable diminution of normal rights—for a definite and relatively brief period of platform construction because of the vital relationship between oil extraction and our economic life. But the Government would be wrong to use the same methods to acquire and then keep land, private or public, for purposes unrelated to oil sites. The power given to the Government under the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill is not suitable for and should not be instrumental——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hour is late and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into the terms of the Bill. If he does I shall be jumping up and down, and I would rather sit down just now.

Mr. Sproat: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will leave the point. No doubt it can be dealt with in Committee. Perhaps the Minister can tell me, or find out for me, whether it is true that the Government did not consult the Scottish Trawlers Federation at any time in any way when they were preparing the Bill dealing with the construction of sites. If so, it is an astonishing and shocking admission considering that it affects the very element, the sea, in large part, from which our fishermen draw their living, which must inevitably be affected in many ways. Is that the case? If it is, I will undertake at least to let the Secretary of State for Scotland have the views of the federation, and my own as well.
I turn to the question of the defence of the oil construction sites and rigs. Yesterday, in his defence review, the Defence Secretary excluded any mention of how he would deal with a threat to North Sea oil construction sites and installations, either on land or at sea. He said that the review did not take it into consideration. This is indicative of the reluctance of the Ministry of Defence to realise the importance of these structures and the part they can play in meeting our desperate need for offshore oil.
In the last debate, an hon. Member said that the three most important things for the country at present were manufacturing exports, invisible exports and North Sea oil. Yet the defence review did not consider the cost and

method of defending our North Sea oil rigs. It is extraordinary. Each rig is worth about £60 million, quite apart from the immeasurable amount of oil it can discover and extract. Our North Sea installations and sites are perhaps the biggest single additional military burden we shall have, apart from Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): The subject of this debate is the development of construction sites for offshore oil. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should have a special defence programme for the construction sites?

Mr. Sproat: The Defence Secretary said that the onshore sites were more vulnerable than the sites at sea. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree, he should argue it out with the Defence Secretary. But protection for the sites was not provided for in the defence review. Either the Defence Secretary will have to protect the North Sea oil sites with his reduced forces, or, on reconsideration, he will have to increase the military budget.

1.49 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: At this hour and in the presence of this audience of hon. Members, must of whom are from Scottish constituencies, it is an almost incestuous discussion, and I propose to restrict myself to the question of development costs and the effect this may have on Government policy in relation to construction sites and the number of rigs which may be required. I shall be very brief at that.
It is clear that each platform which may be constructed for oil purposes will have a value of between £50 million and £70 million—a very substantial contract. It is clear also that there is a degree of interest among certain companies in obtaining sites for their own commercial purposes. Without going into the subject of other legislation now before the House, it is possible, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) did, to query the estimate of £7 million contained in the current Estimates in this Bill.
It is said there that £7 million is reserved for development costs, and I should like to hear from the Minister what sort of development costs are anticipated in that estimate. It is clear to me


that, at any rate in commercial terms, any company that has the chance of obtaining a profit of £50 million to £70 million should be expected to meet the cost of the development of that site. It is part of the Government's policy that the costs of reinstatement, and so on, should be met by such commercial companies, but there is no reference in the estimate to reinstatement and therefore we come back to the initial question of development.
If it is the case that £7 million is required for development costs, one wonders whether that is worth while. There is a market for construction platforms, and this is probably one of those cases in which the Government should keep their money out and let industry meet the costs and set them against the profits that they may reasonably be expected to make on the deal.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North said, and as I said in an earlier debate, it is possible that there could be under construction sufficient platforms to meet the United Kingdom's estimated self-sufficiency of about 110 million tons. The Government have said that they are interested in the conservation of oil resources. If there is an intention to proceed with the construction of other platforms, that may suggest that the Department of Energy intends to increase oil production to more than 110 million tons per year, perhaps up to 150 million tons, or perhaps even up to the astronomical figure referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North.
This question was raised in an earlier debate but was not dealt with by the Minister. The information that was relied upon in that debate came from the Department of Energy. I refer the Minister to the answer that he gave on 18th November 1974 which indicated the platforms under construction and set against each of them the expected oil production. According to my calculation, there was a certainty of 88 million tons, with the prospect of another 24 million tons. If that is the case, and if self-sufficiency is to be met, it may be argued that the less the Government spend of their estimates the better.
That raises the secondary question of the value of exports to United Kingdom

or Scottish industry. Although it is said that there should be great value to industry from these large contracts for construction platforms, there is expert evidence to suggest that we may be moving in the next 10 years to sub-sea completion plant systems. One need refer only to the recent report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology on offshore engineering, where attention is drawn specifically to the need for greater attention to be paid to that new form of engineering that is much more capable of adding to the exporting level.
There is a limit to the ability to produce large platforms for export because of the practical difficulties involved, but I concede that by producing construction platforms one gets involved in producing a large amount of other and smaller equipment for export to countries in which platforms are to be constructed. Therefore, my suggestion is that if Government money is to be provided at this stage as an incentive to industry, related to energy, perhaps some part of the £7 million would be better directed to research into sub-sea systems and matters connected therewith.
I shall be glad to hear the Under-Secretary's reply to the questions which have been raised in this debate.

2.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): We have had a short but interesting debate which has ranged much wider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite your strictures, than the short title of the Bill.
In noting the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher)—to whom my remarks were intended to be a compliment, although his own Front Bench apparently did not so regard them—in managing to introduce energy conservation into his speech, I reflected that these very proceedings, in fuel terms and human terms, are the very opposite of energy conservation. He managed to raise a number of interesting points and I will deal with them and give him answers.
On the question of the £7 million, which is the justification for this short debate, the figure takes account of the likely expenditure during the current financial year on the development of


sites to ensure that contractors to whom sites are allotted are prepared for the 1977 float-out.
May I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that it is not the Government's intention that there should be any form of subsidy to the contractors who will be using the sites for the production of platforms, but that in order to catch the development in time for the very severe restrictions in terms of weather it was thought prudent that the Government should be in a position to advance money so that sites can be developed in advance of orders.
This is a matter which we can discuss more fully in Committee on the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill. I should have thought it was common sense for the Government to make sure that sites are available in time for production to start, so that we catch the 1977 float-out, the 1978 float-out and the rest. The policy will be that the expenditure which the Government make will be recouped from the companies in the course of the development of the sites. I hope that will reassure the hon. Gentleman, who is rightly vigilant about the expenditure of public money.
On the other point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, about the arithmetic of multiplying the number of platforms by the projected possible production from each platform, I think he will appreciate the difficulty of taking such a simplistic view. It assumes that all platforms are producing at full blast all the time. It takes some time for a platform to come into full production, and these platforms have a limited life, given the very severe conditions existing in the North Sea. Therefore, it is a case of keeping up the supply. It is not possible to take the total required in the foreseeable future and multiply the number of platforms by the projected production and arrive at a meaningful figure. It raises, however, the important question whether we have a sufficient number of sites.
The other criticism which is voiced from time to time by the hon. Member for Dundee, East is whether we have too many sites. The Government were under criticism for some time that they were not doing enough to make sure that sites were available for concrete platform

production. We are now criticised for the possibility that there may be too many sites. If we are being criticised on the one hand for too few sites, and on the other hand for too many, it is possible that we have got the number just about right. Our policy is a flexible one. It will ensure that we have the sites available to meet current demands, and it is no use hon. Members sniggering at that, because that is what the Government should be doing. It is a changing pattern and we should have a flexible response to it. That is the only common sense policy any Government could have.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North was right to stress the importance of the statement of 12th August. Before that statement there was a problem in that there seemed to be a plethora of designs for platforms. There also seemed to be a plethora of planning applications. There was a rash of planning applications for the west coast of Scotland, a large number of which were quitely rightly refused. However, the Government determined what was necessary to bring more cohesion and reason to the situation and therefore on 12th August they identified, with the help of independent consultants, those designs for platforms which were likely to be commercially successful. The criterion in this context was whether they were likely to win orders from oil companies, and that was a realistic test.
Government policy since then has been to try to match successful designs to sites. The object of our policy is to make sure that we get the maximum number of platforms from the minimum number of sites because we have to be alive to the danger of environmental damage. I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was too insensitive to the damage which might be caused to the Scottish environment by allowing too many sites to be developed. I think the issue is much more complex than he suggested. That was one of the reasons the Government were determined to make sure that the full rights of communities under existing planning procedures would be respected and would not be interfered with by the programme of public ownership of sites.
Other matters that the hon. Member raised have a great deal to do with the


Bill which we shall be discussing next week and I must keep in order and not discuss them at any length.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister had strayed out of order, I would have corrected him.

Mr. Smith: I am sure that you would, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be frightened to incur your wrath.
Perhaps I may deal with progress, since the statement of 12th August, in obtaining sites and matching them with designs. Since then a number of sites have been obtained. Howard/Doris has obtained planning permission for a site on Loch Kishorn and following that has received a letter of intent from the Burmah Oil Co. for a platform for the Ninian Field. That is a large and significant order which is of great importance. Following discussions with the Department of Energy, Mowlem has modified the Condeep design, which was the subject of a planning application for Drumbuie. With considerable modifications to that design it has submitted a planning application for a site at Campbeltown.
At the same time the Andoc consortium has submitted a planning application for Hunterston. Sea Platform Construction (Scotland) has submitted a planning application for a site at Portavadie for construction of a modified version of the Subtank platforms known as Seadeck. This is the subject of an existing planning application to be determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I was asked to identify a number of sites, but the difficulty is that some of them are still subject to planning decisions to be taken by my right hon. Friend, who has sole control of planning permission. I cannot therefore give precise answers on that score. Considerable progress is being made in matching designs to sites and we feel we are roughly on target in obtaining sites for designs which will be successful.
The importance of the platform construction industry to the British and Scottish economies cannot be underestimated. Not only are these platforms significant orders— up to the value of £60 million each—but they offer a unique opportunity

for the economic regeneration of the Scottish economy. They are important not only for the orders in themselves but for the spin-off for the manufacturing sector in the rest of the economy. It is vital that British companies obtain as many of the orders as possible.
If a British company obtains the order for a production platform it is much more likely that the associated works will go to British companies. There is, in particular, immense opportunity for industry in the works which will be used on the decks of the platforms. We hope that it will be one of the ways in which we can regenerate the economy of West Central Scotland. It was for that very reason that the Offshore Supplies Office of the Department of Energy was expanded and moved to Glasgow, so that it would have an influence in the area where the Government hope we shall have developments in concrete platform production.
I cannot give the hon. Member for Dundee, East a reply to the report of the Select Committee, because it is a convention of Parliament that the Government give a considered reply in the form of a White Paper. The Select Committee would take grave umbrage if I started to answer its points piecemeal in a debate of this kind. But the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government are carefully studying the report and will issue a comprehensive White Paper dealing with its points. They welcome the work which the Select Committee has done on this important topic.
I have said enough to indicate that the Government are well aware of the importance of the construction of concrete platform sites. They have taken action in the fairly short period in which they have been in power. They have intervened to identify designs, something which had not happened before. They have put before Parliament a Bill to enable them to take powers to speed up development. The Government are fully aware of its vital economic importance for the future of this country.
We have had a short debate, but I do not think that we could have had a debate about a much more important topic, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North for giving us the opportunity.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND)

2.12 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland here at this hour to take part in the debate on the agricultural support Estimates of about £12·7 million, which give us the opportunity of a pretty wide debate on agriculture in Scotland. The Estimate covers nearly every facet of Scottish agriculture, from the guarantee scheme through production grants, calf subsidy, beef cow subsidy, hill cattle and hill sheep subsidies, improvement grants, crofter grants, winter keep, the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme, and drainage to farm structure and even the EEC's European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
I shall not touch on all the items in that frightening list. The comprehensiveness of the Estimate shows how right it is to have a general discussion on agriculture and put the whole situation in perspective. I shall naturally concentrate on the damage done by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the beef industry. I welcomed last month's statements on the beef sector, but my theme, which was very much the theme of the last debate, is that what was given was much too little and much too late. At present prices the variable premium, the new initiative of the Minister of Agriculture, may be worth a small increment per hundredweight, perhaps as low as 2p. It does not take the price of beef far towards the £22 or £23 a hundredweight that every reputable authority considers to be the economic minimum.
However, the important point is that the Minister has accepted the complete failure of his policies and has reversed them. But how we wish he had done that last spring. His prejudice against intervention destroyed the market and effectively removed the guarantee. The guarantee of intervention replaced the old deficiency payment guarantee. In August 1973 the exact terms of our guarantee were made clear to the agricultural industry. We began to operate it in February this year.
I hope we shall hear no nonsense from the hon. Gentleman tonight, when he replies to the debate, that we removed the floor from the market, because the Gov-

ernment did that. We had no fear of intervention, although it is only part of a system to which we shall probably settle down in the future. We should always recognise that a country like New Zealand is prepared to have 50,000 tons of lamb in intervention in the frozen store at any one time. There is no reason to be afraid that putting beef into intervention will necessarily cause long-term problems in the future.
However, had the present Government operated intervention from March 1974, when they came into office, the minimum would now be about £20 to £21 per cwt. rather than the £18 per cwt. which the Minister is striving to obtain at present. Our criticism of this move in March, and each step since, has indeed proved to be right. That is why today's recovery operation has become a rescue operation.
I have said that problems existed when the Government took office. I am in no way trying to hide that fact. But the actions of this Government in March turned this farming year into a disaster.
On 20th November 1974 the President of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, following the most recent announcement from the Minister of Agriculture, subsequent to his return from Brussels, said:
As far as the level is concerned, this is not enough to repair the damage done to the industry over the past nine months, and we deplore the fact that the Government have not been able to make retrospective payment to help those who have already suffered.
The blame for the exceptionally serious damage to many sectors of the industry lies firmly at the Government's door. The many speeches the Minister of Agriculture in the spring, summer and autumn, recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will for ever remind him and the Secretary of State that it would have been far better to have listened to the advice of farmers, whether on food production or on taxation, than that of the Left-wing politicians. No hon. Member of this House has ever had to eat so many words—which, in view of the short period of time in which they were uttered, must be indigestible—as have the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State. I dread to think what must have been flitting between him and the Minister of Agriculture. It must have been singularly unpalatable food. It is particularly sad that so many


unfulfilled assurances have been given and so many hopes raised.
Every beef farmer knows how disastrously the policies of the present Government have failed. The tragedy is that so many farmers have suffered under this incompentence and will suffer for a long time to come. As the President of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland said, one sector has faced the worst of it, namely hill and upland farming. Despite the fact that the hill and upland farmer has been forced to sell his suckled calves and store cattle before the onset of winter, he has received no bonus and no retrospective payment. He had no alternative but to go to the market in October. This is the most important point. I hope the Minister will be able to offer some hope or encouragement to the farmers in this sector. There has been an element of help provided by the increase in the calf subsidy. But it is a pittance compared with the drop in the market which has been caused by Socialist muddle and loss of confidence.
The extra £10 calf subsidy sounds attractive, but producers have lost between £50 and £70 a head on suckled calves. They averaged £40 this year, compared with more than £100 last year. There has been a drop of between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent., and we must not forget that this is one of the main sources of income for any hill farm.
This catastrophe has occurred not only to hill farms. Black and white heifers and bullocks have been running at about £50 or £60 for 7 cwt. beasts, and in the breeding side of the industry blue-grey heifers, which are most important in the hill and upland farmlands, have dropped perhaps 50 per cent. in 12 months, from £250 to about £120, at recent markets.
The Minister knows that the hill farmer cannot retain any extra stock. He has no extra winter keep for the purpose. The cattle have had to go. Much of this has been confirmed by the report of the Highlands and Islands Development Board on fodder available in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say a little about the hint that was given—indeed, it was more than a hint—by his colleague the Minister of State for Agriculture that something

might be done about forage in the very near future.
The problems of the hills have to be coupled with a 60 per cent. drop in the value of cast ewes, lamb prices which in many cases have dropped by 50 per cent., transport costs which have doubled, and costs generally which have gone up by 25 per cent. The one welcome feature, although it has been a difficult commitment for farmers, has been the increase in agricultural wages, which have gone up substantially during the past year.
We all join in welcoming the additional provisions for safety for farm workers, and this House will always give that priority at any time. But, following the disastrous drop in fat cattle prices which I have mentioned, naturally we had a fall in store prices which is just as catastrophic.
It has been a rough time for stock rearing farmers. I know that the hill cow subsidy for 1975 will be paid in January or February of the coming year instead of in December 1975, but am I right in thinking that this is purely an accelerated payment and not an additional payment? Farmers are concerned about what the position will be this time next year when, for all they know, they may be in similar financial difficulty.
We appreciate that the situation is different in the case of the hill ewe subsidy and the additional payment, to which I give a very warm welcome. But how quickly does the Minister hope to pay out the new hill cow and beef cow subsidies? We have received the forms already. I got mine this morning, and they appear as usual to be frighteningly complicated. They have arrived before my 1974 payment, so I hope that both payments will come as rapidly as possible.
All farmers greatly appreciate the work of the officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The livestock officers and veterinary officers do splendid work on the ground throughout Scotland. I do not believe that any delay is on their account because they do their work as expeditiously as possible.
Sometimes I wonder whether it is the famous Scottish Office computer, which gives us so much trouble with education grants, which holds up the grants for livestock subsidies. I am thinking particularly of the calf subsidy. I have firsthand evidence that it is sometimes several


months after ear punching before the calf subsidy is paid. I hope that the Minister will do everything possible to speed up the administrative side of the payment whenever he has an opportunity to do so.
I turn briefly to grading standards relating to the headage payment and the variable premium. I am in no way blaming the graders who work in the markets. I ask the Minister to think about the regulations. I understand that he is trying to enforce the old deficiency payments standard of the FGS—the fatstock guarantee scheme. This is causing serious concern in the dairying areas of Scotland —namely, Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway.
Naturally the farmers in those areas responded to the call for as much extra beef from the dairy herd as possible. They are now finding that the steers and heifers coming forward from the dairy herd are not all of a conformation to pass the grading standards as laid down in the regulations. Will the Minister reconsider the regulations or even permit a half payment of the premium subsidy to animals of the type that I have mentioned? I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful about headage payments and I think that that might be a way out.
I have first-hand evidence, as I expect he has, from Smithfield after talking to butchers and farmers in the beef trade, that frequently the difference is as little as a penny a pound between sides that have had the headage premium and have passed the grade and those that have not. The sides that have not been graded have lost the full premium. That is a serious matter. I hope that we shall have a little more flexibility on the grading of stock from the dairy herd.
I shall not ask the Minister about the recent changes in slaughterhouse regulations and export to the EEC. It is half-past two in the morning and it is a complicated matter.
I ask the Minister to tell us a little more about how matters are likely to go in future. In the debates last month the Minister could not commit himself further than the end of February. We are now moving into a new farming year and it is desperately important that confidence returns to the industry. I hope that the Minister will at least say that there will be a floor in the market after February.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say more about what the headage premium or the variable amount will be after February. That affects not only fat cattle but the store trade.
I hope that the Minister is concerned about the large increase in calf slaughterings. He knows as well as I do that in 18 months, if we continue at the present rate, there will be little prime beef for the housewife. The latest figures from the Ministry show that beween the end of October and the middle of November 1973, 15,000 calves were slaughtered. Between the same period this year 65,200 calves were slaughtered, four times as many as over the same period the previous year. That conflicts with what the Minister's right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said on 7th November—namely:
The additional £100 million recently awarded to the dairy sector will also help to ensure a continuing supply of calves for beef production,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 1216.]
That is not what is happening and that must cause concern, as does the serious drop in artificial insemination of 11 per cent. in October, which shows just how the stocking rate in this country will fall under the present Government's policies.
I know that it is no use asking the hon. Gentleman when we shall debate the O'Brien Report, because it is not his responsibility. I am sure that he is as anxious as are many hon. Members present tonight that we should have the debate as soon as possible.
Many hon. Members may raise other points. I should have loved to talk of the problems in regard to pigs, poultry and sheep, and the serious problems in horticulture, as the date for the end of the fuel oil subsidy is known.
The action taken in the February price review by the Conservatives and the action taken in September by the Minister of Agriculture have gone a long way to meet the difficulties with milk. There may still be a shortage, but I think that we have turned the corner, although a number of manufacturing plants still feel concern.
I must not talk about the criminal taxation which agriculture is facing in the near future, or about forestry, which may reach a very serious position later this year.
This farming year has set the industry back a very long way indeed. Many able men will go to the wall. It is no fault of those men. It is solely due to the incompetence of the present Government and the wrong decisions made by them since March. We have had expedient after expedient, failure after failure, and a stubborn refusal to listen to sound advice. I have just heard some rubbish from hon. Members of the Scottish National Party over my left shoulder. That is only because they fail to attend debates and hear the details which I and my hon. Friends have explained from the Opposition Front Bench about the situation over the last 12 months and the reason why that situation built up. That was caused by the world grain crisis and the cost of oil last winter. All of this could have been resolved by the right decisions last spring. Hon. Members of the Scottish National Party may make their speeches later.
The issue is that farming is a long-term business. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture accepts the invitation extended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to set up a round-table conference to strive for long-term agreement and a united approach to long-term stability, always linked with a fair return and fair profitability in the interests of farming and of the housewife. That must be our aim. But tonight, the Government stand condemned for their short-term incompetence.

2.32 a.m.

Mr. John Corrie: I must declare an interest. As a Scotsman, I find that there is a great choice of debates this morning on this Bill, all of great importance. However, I attended an agricultural dinner a few hours ago. It became quite clear to me as each farmer spoke that the Government's policy of successive injections of capital into the industry is not helping the crisis situation in the slightest way in relation to the hill farmers. This applies to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Not only that, but it seemed that there was complete confusion about what was announced last week by the Minister with regard to the beef cow and hill cow subsidies. Farmers still seem to think that the payment they will get in January is

next year's payment and that no payment will be made thereafter. I believe that we shall be getting three payments within 15 months—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. There will be the payment that has just been made, a payment in January and a payment in the following January. If that is so, very few farmers realise it. Can we not have more direction from the Ministry on points such as these? At the dinner which I attended tonight, it was obvious that there was tremendous confusion about these points in the minds of farmers.
Could the Minister explain the new form which has been sent out for the hill cattle subsidy? How will the numbers of cattle qualify for payment be decided? Will it be on 4th December returns? If so, will in-calf heifers qualify?
Will farmers who have increased their herd since 4th June be paid on their higher numbers and will they get the brucellosis premium? Will those in the process of changing from milk to beef under the scheme qualify, and from which date? Will the Government consider stopping the scheme, with the tremendous shortage of milk at present? These are questions to which farmers want to know answers.
I have been checking prices last week and this week, and again there was a disastrous drop in store cattle prices in Scotland on Monday and Tuesday. There are far too many young cattle in Britain today, and many will die this winter from lack of fodder. Concentrates are up £10 a ton and hay has risen £20 a ton since Monday. I wonder whether, if given a choice, cattle would rather die here or be exported. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), I hope that in the very near future we shall hear something about the O'Brien Report.
With the world's deserts growing and useable agricultural land shrinking daily, those countries which can do so should be producing maximum output to feed the starving millions. Someone has to pay for production, and if the consumer is not going to pay a production price for food, a subsidy on the end product is the only answer. If the man fattening cattle gets the right price, he will create a competitive market for store cattle and thus give confidence to the whole industry and improve the lot of hill farmers


who are staving off their bank managers, hoping that things will improve.
Many who are hill farmers tonight will not be hill farmers next spring if confidence and a further cash injection are not given soon. This could be done by a headage payment on the number of cattle between six months and one year old they had on their 4th June returns. That would mean that farmers who sold out at a heavy loss could be singled out and given a cash payment.
I hope that the Minister will look at the serious situation developing in the artificial fertiliser section of the industry. Output depends entirely on these fertilisers, and the more intensive the unit, the more nitrogen is required. Many firms are not even quoting a price in their spring catalogues for nitrogenous fertilisers. In the spring there will be none around and without them, production in the whole industry will slump.
Finally, will the Minister say something about milk prices next April when the present 7·7 pence per gallon will be halved? Can that price not be built into the board price? Will there be an automatic rise from the EEC in the price of milk?
It may be the farmer who suffers at present, but in a very short time it will be the consumer whose food will be rationed by price or by shortage.

2.40 a.m.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie). What I have to say is closely allied to what he said. While we owe this discussion to the luck of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in drawing the right to raise a subject, I do not think that his party can take a great deal of credit for what has happened in the last three years in agriculture in the Highlands.
I am, or was, dissatisfied with the progress they made, or rather did not make in the matter of entry to the Common Market and the unwinding of the system of agricultural support. The hon. Member for Dumfries and his compatriot on the Front Bench may think that I am unkind and cruel, but I despair at his Front Bench. I regard what they did as

being the product of a policy of "too late and too little." They have neglected the problems facing the hill farmers in Scotland.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Did not the hon. Gentleman recognise in Argyll between 1970 and 1973 a considerable increase in the cattle population? Was that just chance? Did he not also notice in the Common Market negotiations the preservation of production grants for hill and upland areas, which was welcomed by hill farmers, including those in Argyll? Did not the hon. Gentleman notice those two occurrences?

Mr. MacCormick: Indeed I did. But people were being encouraged to do that. However, they then found themselves with nothing to fall back on. That is part of the trouble which faces them.
The main reason why I wish to speak is to say something about the position of the hill farmers in Argyll and indeed in the Highlands and Islands generally. It is probably not well enough understood by many hon. Members who represent big cities and the areas of the United Kingdom in which there is no agriculture that there are many sides to farming. I have met many farmers in the last few days who have been at Smithfield this week who are doing very well, to some extent at least at the expense of farmers who live in my part of the country.
It is essential that the Government should understand that farmers in the upland areas of the Highlands and specially in the Islands face special problems which nothing they have done has helped. For example, the recent announcement about guaranteed prices has come too late, because farmers in Argyll, and in the Highlands and Islands generally, have already sold their animals. They will not benefit from higher prices or guaranteed prices.
On Islay there are about 500 calves more than there would normally be at this time of year which the farmers could not get rid of. They will have to be fed over the winter or they will die in the most horrible circumstances, and that we must not contemplate. We need something far in advance of the extra payment or the advanced payment of the hill cow subsidy. We want an immediate cash


injection in this area of agriculture in Scotland.
I have always believed that agriculture must be an integrated industry and, therefore, that agriculture in the Highlands and Islands is an important part of the whole. If this part of agriculture is to flourish, we must take special care to ensure that it continues to flourish in the Highlands and Islands. If it is to do that, the Government must make up their mind. I hope that the Minister will say that he will give a substantial cash injection in the next two or three weeks to the fanners in the areas I have mentioned. The situation is as urgent as that.

2.45 a.m.

Sir John Gilmour: What the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mac-Cormick) said underlines what I have felt for some time and feel needs to be said again. The whole of the livestock industry is bound up with the price of the cereal crop. The world cereal crop price is determined in the autumn, and both last year and this year farmers had to wait too long after the high prices of cereals became apparent to get recoupment.
The Government have done something to help the seller of fat cattle, but in this week's markets the price has gone down by about £1 a hundredweight. Price guarantees have come too late for people in the hill and upland areas. In our negotiations in Brussels we should press for a determination of prices at a time of the year when it becomes apparent what the price levels of feeding stuffs will be. In addition, our farmers need to make their forward planning for the next year's crops in the autumn. It is too late to make determinations in the spring.
At the Smithfield Show this week Scottish beef producers have demonstrated their prowess in the championships which they have won in all the major classes. They deserve to be congratulated by all who are interested. Many of the animals that achieved championships had a little Common Market blood in them. That clearly shows that the Scottish farmer moves with the times and makes certain that he uses the best animals available for breeding.
One London evening newspaper carries a report by one of our leading butchers

underlining the fact that unless something is done to redress the balance of calf slaughterings, to which the hon. Member for Argyll drew attention, the housewife will suffer even more in future from the lack of cattle.
The livestock breeding section of the industry has seen the cereal crop producers receive the biggest rewards. Therefore, there will be a temptation for more people to plough up grass and to grow cereals. Yet the whole emphasis in our future policy ought to be on having a balanced industry so that we do not have people suddenly going from one form of production into another. People should not have all their eggs in one basket— I know that this is not a possibility in hill and upland areas, but it is possible in other parts of the country—but, as far as possible, the risk should be reasonably spread.
We still do not give sufficient attention to the difficulties of the poultry industry. Whereas cattle can be turned out to grass in the summer time, hens cannot be put out to grass in the same way. That matter still needs further investigation by the Minister.
I turn now to horticulture. The subsidy on oil ceases at the end of this year. The horticulture industry is grateful for the help that it has had this year. However, the sudden cutting off of help at the end of the year will lead to a difficult situation. The difficulties will be particularly acute in Scotland because, although we get plenty of sunshine in the summer, we get very little in the winter. We probably have lower mean temperatures than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the difficulties of the Scottish horticulture industry are greater than in any other part of the country. My hon. Friend has underlined the real difficulties not just for agriculture but for all consumers unless we get a reasoned agricultural policy which will give every section of the industry a proper return.

2.50 a.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) showed what a wide field we could be discussing. At this late hour, no doubt the House will welcome the fact that I intend to limit myself to three general points.
First, we must always encourage the maximum amount of food to be grown within our own shores. The efforts of agriculture mean that we grow 60 to 70 per cent. of our own needs. But we can never grow too much of our own food, not only for strategic reasons but also because of the terrific aid that this is to our balance of payments.
Second, I hope that agriculture will not be a political football. As is the case with every other country, it is our basic and biggest industry. It is not just what happens on the land that counts but what goes with it, in food processing and in the production of agricultural vehicles and instruments and so on. That is why one should be careful about the effect on agriculture of political policies, especially in taxation.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, under the present tax laws, it is virtually impossible for a farmer with a good deal of money to pass it on to his son?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I was about to go on to point out that both the main parties over the last two decades have encouraged farms to grow bigger. That is why we have the most efficient agriculture in Western Europe. Suggested taxes will reverse this trend and cause farms to become smaller. Agriculture should not become a political football and taxation should not make it less efficient. This is particularly so in West Aberdeenshire, which is world famous for its production of quality beef cattle. The producers have been buffeted and made to lose money because they have been efficient.
Third, we must treat agriculture in a European context. We cannot isolate ourselves from world problems. The temperate zones of Western Europe must recognise their position vis-à-vis other parts of the world with other climates. It is amazing to hear anyone talk of "mountains" of food. A far better word is "buffers".
How is it possible in Western Europe to produce too much food when two-thirds of the world's population is under-nourished? We talk about giving a bare 1 per cent. of our gross national product to the under-developed world. Is it beyond the wit of man, or some form of organisation, if necessary, to reduce

the 1 per cent. to 0·9 per cent. and give the rest away in kind, paying our producers the market price for such food?
To sum up, at all times we should encourage maximum food production from within our shores. Second, because agriculture is our main basic industry it should never be a political football. Third, we must look at our agricultural industry in its European context vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

2.56 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am obliged for the opportunity to speak on a subject which, above all others, is of importance to the future of this country, namely whether we shall be able to provide our own food within the near future. Any advanced nation, particularly if it is an importing nation, which does not have self-sufficiency in food production within the next 30 years, will not eat.
Agriculture is a subject which may in the past have been considered as unimportant. Now it is central to the whole life of the country. In the context of the Supplementary Estimates, £12 million is a small sum. There can be no question but at present those who work in the agricultural and horticultural industries of Scotland are anxious and unable to see their future within any of the sort of boundaries which they would have been able to forecast in the recent past. In the past three or four years the agricultural industry has made progress in all departments—be it beef, milk, pigs or eggs—towards self-sufficiency. The policy of the Government has, unintentionally, restricted that advance. I do not make a party political point when I say that it is essential that we continue our advance towards agricultural self-sufficiency in all commodities.
That involves what may be a conflict in an inflationary period. It is essential that such a conflict should be resolved. If we are to produce our own food it will have to be paid for by the consumer, either directly or through subsidies. While it may be attractive in the short term to seduce the consumer at the expense of the producer, this is a short-sighted policy because ultimately the consumer will suffer. We have a shortage of bread for industrial reasons and of sugar for political reasons. Many other


commodities will fall short, and increasingly shorter, in the years to come, unless we have a broad and long-term strategy for agriculture, particularly in Scotland, where agricultural policy has been successful and agricultural attitudes have a deep tradition.

Mr, Iain MacCormick: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the system of guaranteed prices we had in this country until recently helped not only the farmers but the consumers as well?

Mr. Fairbairn: I fully appreciate that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be referring to beef, but it was essential, in order to go into the EEC, at some point to remove that form of beef guarantee and to substitute the intervention system, which the present Government refuse to implement. At the time it was done, it was not conceived that the price would ever come near to the bottom in the market as it has done. It may have been right or wrong but that was the case.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the intervention policy for beef under the common agricultural policy would help Scotland, with its limited—or no—cold storage facilities?

Mr. Fairbairn: It would help because the Scottish farmers producing the beef would be getting proper prices instead of what they are now getting in dribs and drabs. They could have been offered proper prices long ago had it not been for the absurd measures of the Minister of Agriculture. Those prices would have been available had the Minister not been patently compelled not to operate them since last March.
Whatever approach one has in party political terms, agriculture is a long-term matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) spoke about poultry. Beef production is a longer process. We are still operating— I do not comprehend why—a milk subsidy. It is quite extraordinary.
Farming is a long-term process. The most essential thing to it is not an annual review, far less the innumerable, tinkering schemes introduced by the Minister, however much they may have

helped towards restoring confidence. Despite these measures, in my constituency as in others there are people who have no confidence to do what is their duty in the agricultural industry—to provide not just for their own future but for our salvation.
At the moment, we have a system whereby there is an announcement one week of a slaughter subsidy and the next week that two premiums will be paid in one, while the next month the Government announce that they will introduce some complex system whereby a sort of intervention is to be operated. No industry can operate on such a basis.
Supposing the Ford Motor Company had to sell its cars on the basis of having to accept whatever price it could get, even at a loss, while Mercedes-Benz got an £86 premium and Renault got an £84 premium on each of their cars, and every time Ford exported a car it had to pay £31 to do so. Would not such a system destroy our motor industry? It would, and that is what we are doing in agriculture. I am glad that Lord O'Brien honourably told us that several members of his committee reversed their view on hearing the evidence. Despite the fact that we are forbidding ourselves that market, we are allowing an import trade, particularly from Ireland and from unknown origins.

Mr. MacCormick: Is it not ridiculous that we are not allowed to export live cattle to the Continent? In my constituency, we can export live cattle from Islay and Tiree to the mainland, and that takes less time than the journey from England to France.

Mr. Fairbairn: I agree but, as I understand it, that is not the objection by those who object. I think that the Government have a duty, with the beef industry as it is, to ensure that the recommendations of the O'Brien Committee are fulfilled and that this country permits the export of live cattle, subject to full safeguards.
In the present situation, what the agriculture industry requires is not only cash. A lot of people are making losses and do not see any way out of bankruptcy, and even if they stay in the industry they cannot see a sustained, safe and sensible future for the job that they are doing so diligently.
The threat of the destruction of farms by the Government's taxation policies should be removed immediately. The Government should move away from the policy that we have seen in the past few months of consistently attempting, under pressure, to come to the rescue of the bankrupt just before it is too late and give us a long-term policy that will bring confidence to the industry. Unless that is done, eventually those who did not provide for this nation to be self-sufficient in food will lose the votes of the farming industry. The people as a whole will suffer, and they will wreak vengeance on those who did not provide the proper policy at this stage.

3.8 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown):: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) on being lucky in the ballot, and even though it is 3 o'clock in the morning I do not consider it unreasonable that we should be discussing this subject.
When I heard the hon. Gentleman threatening to tell me that all the subsidies were inadequate and promising to go into great detail, my first reaction was that I did not know the farmers received as much as in fact they do. However, the hon. Gentleman was lenient and confined his remarks to one or two main points and I shall attempt to reply to them.
I appreciated the hon. Gentleman's comments about the work done by officials of the Department, but I thought that he was a little ungenerous in talking about delays in making payments. If delays have been occurring, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not aware of them. The fact is that the payments have been made at an earlier date than ever before. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not all the weaknesses—nor all the good points—have arisen since March of this year. The payments have been advanced more this year than ever before because we want to clear them out of the way before the next lot becomes due, and I shall refer to that later.
I did not have the advantage of being at the farmers' dinner. I do not know whether there was anything personal in that.

Mr. Monro: I did not get there either.

Mr. Brown: There is some discrimination here. I suspect that the longer it went on the more violent the attacks became on the Government.
Concern has been expressed about the O'Brien Report, and we in the Department appreciate the urgency of the matter. However, as hon. Members are aware, an assurance has been given that the House will have an opportunity to discuss it, and I do not think that I shall be putting my foot in it if I say that I would welcome the maximum pressure in that respect. I do not mean that pressure should be exerted only on my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to arrange for an early debate. I mean that hon. Members opposite should do a bit of conversion among some of their own colleagues, and that applies to hon. Members on this side of the House, too. I assure hon. Members that we in the Department are seized of the urgency of the matter.
I realise that 1974 has not been an easy year for many sectors of Scottish agriculture. Costs have risen and output prices have not kept pace with them. However, one thing which has been impressed on me is that agriculture is a long-term industry. I think I see one hon. Member opposite shaking his head. The problems and difficulties did not start in March. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. Of course, it is a long-term industry. It is desirable that there should be confidence in the industry so that people can plan ahead, but equally it is the wrong decisions or perhaps the miscalculations which were made a year or two years ago which are partly responsible for some of the difficulties which have been experienced this year.
Some of the difficulties which have been mentioned started before the present Government came into power. We have done quite a few things to correct the situation. Milk production was down by over 5 per cent. last year. There was a slide in store cattle prices. The pig breeding herd had fallen by 15 per cent. and feed prices were 50 per cent. higher than a year earlier. All these things were waiting for us. Hon. Members opposite are not doing a service to the farming community if they create the impression that all the problems have suddenly emerged with a wicked Socialist Government. I do not think anybody outside


the House is infantile enough to believe that.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House by referring to all the money that has been put into the industry, but I should like to make one point which touches on what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I am now able to announce that provisional estimates indicate that wheat, barley and potato yields are substantially above previous record levels. The hon. Member was fair enough—perhaps he did not intend to be—to indicate that some sections of agriculture are doing reasonably well just now.

Mr. MacCormick: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite right, but there are other sectors of agriculture which have never been worse off, and these are concentrated in the hill farming areas. Will he not do something to help them?

Mr. Brown: I hope that hon. Members will give me a chance. I am leaving the most difficult part to the last. Hon. Member is in a most interruptive and talkative mood tonight. I do not know whether they have all hon. Members been to the farmers' dinner tonight.
I had expected the hon. Member for Fife, East to raise the question of sugar beet, and I have to find some way of introducing the fact that other sectors are doing well.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister assure us that if, as he says, the potato yield is a record, there will be no question of a ban on exports?

Mr. Brown: I knew I would make a mistake referring to that. I had better not give the hon. Member the assurance he seeks in case I am wrong. I shall certainly write to him if there is information which I can give him.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give an assurance that those potatoes will be given transport to allow them to get to the market?

Mr. Brown: The EEC?

Mr. Welsh: No.

Mr. Brown: I am not aware that there is trouble on that score.

Mr. Welsh: There is in Forfar.

Mr. Brown: I have a good Department but it is not geared to letting me know what is happening in Forfar every day of the week.
One hon. Member asked me how the new scheme was working. He should read the Scottish Farmer. Even I read it. It was explained there in great detail. Some of the farmers at the dinner tonight clearly do not read it. They could get the full information there. If there is any other means of publicity which would appear useful we shall certainly look into it. I do not think that the hon. Member has been talking to the best-informed farmers if they did not know that there will be three payments in 15 months.
The hon. Member for Dumfries raised specific points about beef market prices. There has been an increase in prices recently which, I suppose, is an encouraging feature. It is the intention of the additional premia to give the overall figure which, while not guaranteed, it was hoped would reach £18 per cwt. over the period. In his more charitable moments the hon. Member would give us credit whether it is for too little too late, for securing the reasonable prospect of fulfilling that promise by my right hon. Friend.
Fodder presents a serious problem, particularly in the Highlands and Islands and in certain parts of Aberdeenshire and Banffshire. We have the report of the survey done by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and discussions are going on between the Department, the Board and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. We are well aware of the situation. When I say that the problem is not urgent I mean that there is no animal starving as of today, but that does not indicate complacency. We are aware of the situation and hon. Members should wait so that we may give them some indication—it will not be tonight but in the near future—of what action may be taken to help.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of grading. I have written to him about it, and I have asked the Department's chief fatstock officer to take a further look, with the MLC, at the point that is causing concern. If the hon. Gentleman has specific points to raise, or wants a wider examination, I shall be only too willing to assist. I agree that we must be able to satisfy farmers throughout the country that there is a fair application of


standards. It is difficult. If there are five judges at a cattle show there can be five different opinions. It is like the Miss World competition. It may be a bit more scientific, but it must be difficult to ensure equality of treatment in various markets. It is not like an insurance benefit, where the person who has paid 50 stamps receives the same rate, no matter where he claims it.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) and the hon. and learned Member for Kincross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) raised matters of great interest—the long-term supply of food and a possible contribution to the under-developed countries. I shall not go into them in detail, as they do not arise on the Supplementary Vote, but I accept the general promise that if there are difficulties, as there obviously are, they could lead to a shortage of food throughout the world. If the seed corn is not sown, nothing comes up.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has alrealy said that he will consider favourably the possibility of a Select Committee or, as someone said, a round table approach. We want to give stability and confidence to the industry. We are fully aware of the difficulties that have been faced by certain sectors of farming in Scotland, particularly the livestock sector. But the Opposition cannot disclaim responsibility for the difficulties. Farming is a long-term business, and the difficulties began last year, when the Conservatives were in power.
It is no use saying that the difficulties would have been resolved by full-scale intervention. They would not, and European farmers realise that. I do not say that on the basis of any ideological objection. I think that most people recognise that it is not the complete answer. We have already indicated that we are moving backwards in time—but really moving forwards—to something resembling more the kind of guaranteed price scheme that used to exist.
It does no service to farming to exaggerate the short-term problems and decry the industry's ability to overcome them. The industry is basically strong and efficient. In view of the help the Government have given and are giving, I am not at all despondent about the future.
Since taking office in February, the Government have given a massive injection of additional capital to Scottish fanning of £45 million to £47 million. That is not chicken feed. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is an expert on agriculture as well as education, but it is quite a considerable sum. It has gone into the rearing of beef calves, pig production, beef production, hill and upland farming for both cattle and sheep, milk production, glasshouse production and the maintenance of the land. It provides a clear and positive indication of our recognition of the short-term problems and of our determination to encourage the maximum economic production of food. It is a mark of our good faith in upholding an industry, employers and workers alike, which is so significant for the future wellbeing of Scotland. We shall continue to pay due regard to an industry that makes such an important contribution to the economy of this country.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS' PAY (SCOTLAND)

3.26 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: All sides agree that a conciliation and arbitration service may play a very valuable rôle in the settling of industrial disputes throughout the United Kingdom in time to come, although that service has as yet played no rôle in settling the present teachers' dispute in Scotland. Many hon. Members might consider that to be most unfortunate. After all, what better example have we had of the undesirability of ministerial intervention in pay disputes than the disastrous consequences of the role played by the present Secretary of State for Scotland in the present teachers' dispute?
We have seen in recent weeks how a once moderate and responsible profession has been driven step by step into an unprecedented militancy and how the interventions and statements by the Government have merely aroused the passions and fanned the flames of resentment and irritation.
Let no one in any way diminish the seriousness of the situation we now face. We have seen not only a virtual shut


down in Scottish education during the last few days but virtually every school closed and every child in Scotland barred from his educational rights. Although the Government are never anything other than enthusiastic in reminding us how they, and they alone, ended the three-day week in Britain, there are today 1 million Scottish school children who would welcome a three-day week. They have not had it in recent weeks and they do not seem likely to have it in the weeks to come.
In considering the contribution that a conciliation and arbitration service can make to this problem, we have to consider the Government's actions in this dispute in recent weeks. The Government must bear considerable responsibility for the events that have occurred. I do not doubt that they have the best of intentions in the dispute that we are now facing. However, it is clear that the intervention of the Government and the part played by the Secretary of State have had very serious consequences.
If one were to listen to the pious platitudes of the Government one might believe that their contribution to this problem had been productive. They would have us believe that their effect on education was as conclusive as that of General Booth on the Salvation Army— and I mean no offence to the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate.
The Government's contribution has undoubtedly led to an exacerbation of the problem. It has created an unprecedented militancy among members of a profession noted for moderation and diplomacy.
Let us consider the course of action we have seen throughout the period of the dispute. We saw how the initial problem was created by the dismantling of the original relativities procedure, which was set up by the previous Government and which, if it had continued, would have allowed a settlement of this dispute last summer. We have seen the establishment of a deep and penetrating inquiry into the nature of teachers' pay. We welcome that.
It is clear that no attempt has been made to meet the immediate needs of the teaching profession throughout Scotland. The Government, as recently as the end of October, maintained the utter impos-

sibility of making any interim award in advance of the final recommendations of the Houghton Committee. They said as much on 30th October.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes) indicated dissent.

Mr. Rifkind: The Minister shakes his head. Let me remind him of the words of the Secretary of State during the Debate on the Address, when he said:
… the Houghton Committee was carrying out a comprehensive review of teachers' pay. If the report of the committee were likely to be long delayed, and if during the period between the appointment of the committee and publication of its report teachers' salaries were likely to be substantially eroded, that would certainly be an argument for making an interim payment now. Frankly, neither of those conditions applies. Any interim payment now might cut across the recommendations of the Houghton Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October 1974; Vol. 880, c. 370.]
There we have the uncompromising position of the Secretary of State on 30th October that any interim award in advance of the recommendations of the Houghton Committee was out of the question. But what happened——

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is being most unfair. He is making an attack on the Secretary of State when he knows that my right hon. Friend is precluded from replying to it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, the Secretary of State is quite able to be present and to intervene if he disagrees with any of my arguments. We are considering the effect of not using the Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the way in which the teachers' dispute has proceeded.
On 30th October, the Secretary of State ruled out any question of an interim award. However, two weeks later he announced the payment of an interim award, clearly as a result of the militancy that we had seen. We welcomed the announcement of the interim award. We thought that it was the beginning of a proper relationship with the teaching profession in Scotland. But, sadly, when the amount of the interim award was announced, it proved to be the cruellest blow of all.
On the Friday when the message came through, I was addressing 50 teachers in my constituency. It was announced that the interim award was to be £100 which, after tax and superannuation, represented a mere £60. The reaction of the teaching profession was one of immediate feelings of insult, fury and anger.
The major cause for concern, however, is not the amount of the interim award. It is the implications of it. If an award of £100 at this stage is considered the maximum which can be made consistent——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Gentleman is getting on to rather thin ice. He is quite in order in discussing the conciliation procedure and what arises out of it, but we want to keep clear of the award which has been made, because the dispute itself is rather different. We are dealing with conciliation and the Vote under which it has been raised.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, when we are considering the contribution which can be made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Service to a dispute such as the present teachers' dispute in Scotland, we have to look at what is being achieved by the method by which the Government are seeking to solve that dispute, instead of using the Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
What frightens me is not only the anger and hostility of the teaching profession, and not only that people who have gone through colleges of education are not entering the profession, but that existing teachers are leaving by the dozen. I have received a number of letters on the subject, and yesterday I had one from a constituent saying:
After fourteen years in teaching, I now see no future in an education system for which I gave so much of my own time and energy, if the Government continues in its present attitude. I am now trying to find out what alternative employment I could take up and thus withdraw from a job where discontent increases month by month and few seem to care about the difficulties teachers face daily.
In a situation where the Government maintain repeatedly that they have a new contribution to make to the conciliation of industrial problems and where they put forward the Conciliation and Arbitration Service as a brand new technique for

dealing with all types of industrial disputes, it is a sad comment on the worth of the overall proposals and their contribution to the solution of industrial problems that in Scotland we face a degree of militancy and disruption which is totally unprecedented in the whole of Scottish history.
I suggest that we need a new departure by the Government in appealing not only to the teachers but also to all those who support the objective of the teachers.
It has been made clear again and again by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that while there is general support for the teachers' objectives there is widespread feeling following the statement made on Monday that the tactics presently being employed by the Government are only to be regretted. It becomes increasingly difficult for hon. Members to persuade teachers not to indulge in sabotage of examinations or in massive strike activity when it becomes clear that only that sort of action will meet with a response from the Government in their handling of the dispute.
We have heard that the Government are prepared to meet the Scottish Teachers' Salaries Committee on Friday. I make a final appeal. In doing so I believe that I speak for all back benchers. I ask the Government to look upon the Friday meeting as a last opportunity to prevent additional disruption over the weeks and months to come. I ask them to go to the meeting determined to reach a settlement. I ask them to offer the sort of circumstances and conditions that could achieve a settlement. Scotland is waiting to hear of a generous, rational and constructive approach on the part of the Government. In the absence of such an approach it is clear that we can look forward only to continued disruption in the months to come.

3.37 a.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) for giving us the opportunity to discuss some aspects of the Scottish teachers' dispute, albeit in a rather roundabout and devious way.
I contribute to the debate because until the recent General Election I was employed as a teacher in a Scottish school. I have spent the majority of my working


life teaching and earning my living in a Scottish school and I know what low pay and poor conditions mean for teachers. I was also active in the trade union movement within the teaching profession. I have always thought that to be the best way to go about improving pay and conditions. I have not expected Government or external agencies to come immediately to the scene. I believe that working people should help themselves. Teachers are working people and they have the makings of a fairly well-organised trade union system in Scotland if only they will use it.
I also have an interest in the consumer side of education. Two of my children missed a day's education yesterday because of the strike. In my constituency the effect of the education strike has been exacerbated by the effect of the bus strike. There are no railway stations in my constituency and public transport has come almost to a standstill. Even if the children manage to get on a bus and get to school they find that there is no teacher to teach them.
Is it right to look to the CAS to settle this dispute? To find an answer we must consider briefly the history of the dispute. Many teachers in Scottish classrooms and staffrooms sat quietly and passively through phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Conservative Government's pay policy. Hardly a whimper was heard. They touched their forelocks, accepted their money and that was it. There was no marching in the streets. No antagonism was directed towards the Government. There was no call for an appeal to any outside agency such as the CAS. Of course, the Conservative Government had never dreamed of such an agency.
It is important to realise that we are now in a phase in which we are moving out of statutory wage restraint into a new era of voluntary collective bargaining. We have a social contract with guidelines.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Oh !

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) may make his exclamations, but the social contract will work. It is obvious that Conservative Members do not want it to work. They are determined to kill it practically before it is

born. But certainly the social contract is the only key to industrial peace in this country. Hon. Members of the Opposition would do well to remember that and to co-operate with it.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether we can look forward— hoping, indeed, that it does work—to the Ministers who are colleagues of the Secretary of State for Scotland showing the same inane stubbornness in settling, for instance, the claims of the National Union of Mineworkers as they are showing with the teachers?

Mr. Canavan: I shall develop my argument with regard to the teachers as I move on in my speech. The teachers got fairly preferential treatment, as I shall point out later. But what is lurking at the back of many people's minds, including teachers' minds, is that some form of statutory wage restraint will be reimposed. I have already said publicly, and I repeat it now, that I would be one Member of Parliament who would vote against such a measure if it ever reached the stage of being debated here, and there would probably be a majority who would follow me.
However, before the CAS got under way one of the first things which the Labour Government did, on return to power after the February election, was to recognise that there were certain categories of workers who had fallen behind in the whole business of wage relativities. Two of those categories were nurses and teachers—not surprisingly, perhaps, both in the public sector. Accordingly, with the approval of the nursing profession and the teaching profession, the Labour Government set up the Halsbury Committee in respect of the nurses and the Houghton Committee in respect of the teachers. The Houghton Committee has come in for a lot of criticism, especially at Question Time the other day. But it would be unworthy of us not to recognise that Houghton's task was difficult.
Houghton's job was not just to cover the global sum for teachers' salaries in England, Wales and Scotland but also to cover the different salary structures and scales in England, Wales and Scotland. Anyone who knows anything about the


teaching profession and the number of scales in operation, both north and south of the border, and who knows anything about the arguments which take place within the profession about differentials, different qualifications and so on, must realise that Houghton's task was not easy.
It was the teachers who wanted Houghton to cover not merely teachers' salaries globally but also the whole question of differentials. In other words, they themselves asked Houghton to perform a task which was more difficult. This difficulty led to an extension of the duration of Houghton's task. Eventually the teachers became impatient and demanded an interim payment. Possibly in retrospect we can say that the first mistake made was when the interim payment of 10 per cent. was refused. In the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee just over a month ago——

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What have the hon. Gentleman's remarks got to do with the Supplementary Estimates?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I should explain that the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate was getting on to rather thin ice. He skated off it. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is also moving on to thin ice. Perhaps it would be as well if he did not go any further into the danger area.

Mr. Canavan: I thought I should be given at least the same latitude as was given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind).
However, although the £100 offer on Friday was, to many people, an insult, and certainly I thought it was extremely disappointing, and that it possibly aggravated the situation, it is not the end of the world. There is a prospect of teachers getting a better offer. There is something in the pipeline. Hon. Members the other day heard the Secretary of State say that there was a strong possibility of aonther interim payment being offered in January. The full Houghton Report will possibly be out in about 10 days and the teachers are looking forward to something coming out of that. I hope that it does, and that it is a lot better than

the £100 interim payment is likely to indicate.
It is only fair that the final Houghton Report should be given a chance, one last chance though it may be. It is not appropriate at this stage for the Conciliation and Arbitration Service to intervene. That is why I am surprised at the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands implying perhaps that it should.
None of the teachers' organisations in Scotland has asked the CAS to intervene. Apart from the official teachers' organisations which are represented on the STSC, there are also the unofficial action groups, groups which have not just gone in for devolution for Scotland for we appear to have different groups for East, West, and Central Scotland and so on. This makes it difficult and makes it even more inappropriate for a body like the CAS to intervene.
As the Minister in the Department of Employment rightly told me at Question Time on Tuesday when I asked about the possibility of CAS intervention in the Scottish bus drivers' strike, in unofficial strikes, the CAS makes a practice of meeting the official union representatives to see what they can do. It would be tactless of the CAS to intervene without being invited, especially when it would appear that in some instances the official trade union leaders have, in the case of teachers, lost a bit of touch with rank-and-file membership.
In any case, it is important that workers, not just teachers but all workers, should realise that neither the Government nor the CAS, nor Parliament for that matter, can solve all the problems, that in an era of free collective bargaining there is a responsibility on workers to unite in collectively pressing their case in a reasonable manner. In the past, one of the difficulties in the teaching profession in Scotland has been that far too much energy has been dissipated in the unions and organisations fighting among themselves rather than presenting a united front.
It is appropriate to think about what trade unions are up against. Historically the trade union movement has always seen the Tory Party as its main enemy. Recently the Industrial Relations Act underlined the fact that the Tories are historically the enemies of the trade union movement.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Which party brought brought in the legislation introducing the trade union movement?

Mr. Canavan: Trade union movements existed long before legislation was introduced to legalise them. If it had not been for the fact that working men and women got together and organised themselves in collective-bargaining organisations, the living standards of many people, including many hon. Members on this side of the House, would be far worse.
As I say, historically in Scotland the enemies of the trade union movement have been identified with the Tory Party——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the question of conciliation and arbitration. I should be grateful if he would keep close to the subject matter of the debate.

Mr. Canavan: If the Conciliation and Arbitration Service were to intervene, it would have to understand the intricacies of the recent Scottish political scene. It is important to emphasise that the first responsibility for negotiating is on the heads of the trade unions. People should not simply invite in external agencies at the first opportunity. That should be done as a last resort.
There are separate trade unions and negotiating bodies in Scotland and there is a certain division of opinion between them. They vary in size, from the largest -the Educational Institute of Scotland- to one called the Scottish Women Teachers' Association, which represents less than 1 per cent. of the Scottish teaching profession. Therefore, with splinter groups like that, not just nationally but sexually separatist, one could imagine the trouble that the CAS would have if it were to intervene in this dispute.
The lesson from the recent teachers' strike and recent strikes in Scotland in general perhaps is that the biggest enemy of the trade union movement is division. It is no mere slogan to say that the word "union" was well chosen by the people who first organised themselves into unions. Unity is strength. If the social contract, including the Conciliation and Arbitration Service, is to work and to get a fair chance of working, all the working people of Scotland, indeed of the United Kingdom, including teachers, must realise their strength, unite and

stand on their own feet and not go running to the Government or external agencies at the first available opportunity.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's phrase about "all the working people of Scotland". Whom does he except-just the unemployed, or is there some category of person he is not willing to include?

Mr. Canavan: I should have thought it self-evident that some people are contributing very little to the economy but are taking very much out of it by means of investment income, unearned income, money for which they have not worked. They are not working people. They are exploiting people.
It is important for workers to realise their collective responsibility and independence. This Government have given workers a freedom, an independence, a maturity, which they have never had before in this country. I am confident that the workers, given time and some encouragement by hon. Members on both sides of this House, will measure up to that new-found freedom and independence instead of listening to the political opportunists and "chancers" opposite.

3.56 a.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: It is with some trepidation that I rise at this late hour to speak on the teachers' dispute in Scotland. I am assured that 4 a.m. is when one feels at one's lowest ebb. Therefore, I intend to be brief. I will not call for the resignations of any Government Front Bench Members and I do not intend to take up the point made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about sexual separatism.
I have an interest in the teaching profession, having taught for six years before becoming a Member of this House. I was also involved in the trade union movement within the teaching profession, serving on the executive of my union which, although small, has close co-operation with the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association and is therefore a fairly influential body.
The whole situation in Scotland is such as to give rise to great concern over the future of the Scottish education system. In the negotiation machinery for discussing teachers' salaries, the teachers' side


takes its decision on a majority vote, but on the management side the two Scottish Education Department's representatives can, in effect, outvote the 12 education committee representatives. The arrangements for the conduct of the management side provide that 12 cannot make or amend an offer without the approval of the Secretary of State. In short, the legal employers of the teachers cannot negotiate freely with the teachers on the salary that they should receive. This seems an outrageous state of affairs in 1974.
Part of the great problem which has currently arisen is due to the fact that the situation does not allow majority decisions to give the impression that justice is being done. Teachers feel that justice is not being done within the negotiation machinery.
In the current dispute local education authorities were willing to pay more on account than the Secretary of State, and that led to a great conflict of loyalty within the education authorities. Many education authorities demonstrated that they had a higher sense of the value of teachers' services than the Secretary of State and his representatives.
So long as there is no effective negotiation machinery for Scottish teachers, the only action left for them is industrial action, which many of them do not wish to undertake. They realise that it exacerbates the whole situation as we have part-time teaching and an acute shortage of teachers in many parts of Scotland.
I urge the Government to set up a committee of inquiry into the negotiation machinery for Scottish teachers' salaries and to set up a Royal Commission on Education in Scotland. Given that a Scottish Assembly will be set up perhaps within two years——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Lady is getting very wide of the matter being debated, which is the conciliation machinery. I must ask her to stick more closely to the subject under discussion.

Mrs. Bain: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pointing out the defects in the present negotiation machinery for Scottish teachers and asking that the whole situation be reviewed in the hope of avoiding future conflicts such as the one we have now.
Given that we shall have a Scottish Assembly within two years, this would seem to be an opportune time to review the whole education system in Scotland. A Royal Commission could do this effectively. Indeed, a commission of inquiry into the negotiation machinery would be effective. Then, when the Scottish Assembly takes control of education, we could give children and teachers a better deal.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The purpose of the debate is to see whether there is any scope for the CAS to intervene in the Scottish teachers' dispute. I was enormously depressed by the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). It was similar to the recent statement of the Secretary of State, that nothing more could be done, that we must just grin and bear it and wait and see. He said that, given time, workers would respond to their new responsibilities under the freedom of negotiation.
What we have to get across is that there is a desperate crisis in Scotland. It will not wait for the workers' response or for a Royal Commission. It is poisoning relations between the teachers and their employing authorities. It has created unprecedented deadlock in negotiations and is causing irreparable damage to children's education and career prospects.

Mr. MacCormick: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the only people with the key to this problem are the Scottish Labour MPs, who should have the guts to withhold their support from the Government until they agree to pay teachers a reasonable salary?

Mr. Taylor: I do not know that we could solve this problem in that way. More than money is involved. My experience in industrial relations in the shipyards is that money is not the root of a bad situation. Even if we gave the teachers £20 a week extra tomorrow, the damage would remain and would affect Scottish education for a long time.
Can the CAS play a rôle? Is it true that it will act only if invited to do so by the parties? I understand that, in other disputes, as a result of an initiative by the Minister or one of its officials, it has approached the parties. The Minister


must explain its rôle. The so-called social contract and the CAS replaced the phases 1, 2 and 3 of the previous Government-ment's policy. Our arrangements at the time of the February election would, in the view of most reasonable people, have provided a procedure to settle the teachers' problem in a short time. When the Relativities Board was set up, we made it clear that we thought that there were two special cases—the teachers and the nurses. At least the procedure of that board would have led to a speedy decision.
Is it the job of the CAS to try to reach settlements within the social contract, or is it simply to bring about a settlement? I have been confused by recent settlements, for example the lorry drivers' dispute, when the Secretary of State paid tribute to the CAS for bringing the two sides together, and shortly afterwards condemned the settlement it had helped to bring about as being outwith the social contract. I am astonished that, although one of the basic guidelines of the social contract appears to be no more than one settlement in 12 months, this rule has been breached in 29 of the last 37 major settlements.
Why has there been this desperate trouble in Scottish education and how might the CAS help? Undoubtedly a lot of trouble has stemmed from the replacement of our pay policy, which was so condemned by the Labour Party, with a policy which appears simply to offer the maximum scope for increases to those prepared to cause maximum disruption. This has stemmed partly from the result of the cave-in during the miners' dispute. In that case the settlement was cheap in the short term but it will be expensive in the longer term.
While the Houghton Committee has been considering their case, the teachers have seen such people as lorry drivers and others getting massive pay awards in response to massive militancy. Although it is true that the teachers agreed to the setting up of Houghton, they did so following the election and before the flood of substantial wage claims was followed by substantial settlements.
Regrettably, more and more groups in society believe that they will not get justice and a satisfactory settlement by

the use of constitutional procedures which have stood the test of time. They believe that under this so-called free bargaining it is simply a question of being prepared to cause disruption. Those who act responsibly get no money.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that this dispute has all the symptoms and all the associations of the worst possible form of labour relations. In my experience in the shipyards we had a lot of trouble because often a responsible wage claim, put forward through the agreed procedure by a responsible trade unionist, was turned down by the firm while a few weeks later a shop steward, usually a Communist, would ask for exactly the same thing and get it, because a launch was about to take place. One basic rule in good labour relations is never to say "No" to responsible demands and then to cave in to militancy.
We have seen evidence of this happening. We had a statement from the Secretary of State on 30th October to the effect that he did not favour an interim settlement pending the publication of the Houghton Report. Then we had militancy, and disruption, and there was the concession. On 2nd December I asked the Secretary of State whether he intended to do nothing until after the publication of the report. The answer I received was that it was up to the teachers. Then there was a meeting of the Scottish Labour Group, highlighted in the Press. Apparently there was terrific pressure from Scottish Labour Members and the result was that there is to be a further meeting on Friday.
All the indications are that we have had movement, inch by inch, only in surrender to pressures and arising from a fear of militancy. This is one of the worst features of labour relations—if people feel that the only way to get justice is to push and shove. Another symptom of bad labour relations has been the apparent impression given by those involved in the dispute, particularly by the Scottish Office Ministers, that they are not aware of the enormity of the problem facing teachers.
The Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office made a statement yesterday or Monday that the teaching situation in Scotland was improving, although there were regional problems, because there were more teachers. This is at a time


when the raising of the school leaving age has led to more disciplinary problems than ever before and when the number of children on part-time education is theree or four times as great as we have ever known. This statement gave me, and the teachers to whom I have spoken, the impression that the Minister is not aware of the seriousness of the situation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I was referring to the number of teachers in schools and the indications of teacher supply and saying that there were more teachers than ever. To that extent the position is encouraging. To deny that is to misrepresent what I said and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to do that.

Mr. Taylor: I am doing nothing of the sort. I am saying that various statements by Ministers give the impression that they are not aware of the seriousness of the problems in the schools, which are greater than they have ever been. From my experience of labour relations, I know that the one thing one should not do to people who believe that they have a genuine case is to tell them that they are well-off—and the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the threshold payment as though it were a major concession. That statement was stupid.
The handling of this dispute has repeated some of the worst features of bad labour relations in any context. I hope that the CAS will consider the situation and give some advice to the Government, and to the Secretary of State in particular, about how it could be tackled better. I hope that it will also do something in the longer term. It should try to bring the parties together and lay down a long-term plan which would help to resolve some of the problems in future.
First, communication is desperately important. One cannot have good labour relations without it. I was for a short time in charge of Scottish education and it was my plan to have regular meetings, with no agenda, between the Secretary of State or one of his junior Ministers and the various teachers' associations. In the past, the mistake has been made of holding meetings only when problems arose. I believe that it would help enormously

to have regular meeitngs, with no fixed agenda, perhaps monthly or two-monthly.
The second feature which would help would be to have a uniting and knitting together of the various teachers' associations. No one in the Government or in this House would want to dictate to the teachers, but in wage negotiations it would help to have one body representing the teachers because otherwise the various associations compete in militancy with a view to attracting members.
Thirdly, it is important to realise that teacher-politicians are as often unrepresentative of the teachers as politicians are of the people we represent. It is important that Ministers should not just meet the teachers' associations but pay regular visits to schools. When I asked how many times the Secretary of State had visited schools since March, I was told that the Under-Secretary of State had been to a school. It is important to make clear that the people in charge of the Education Department should not only meet the teachers' associations but pay regular visits to schools to discuss the problems with the teachers doing the work.
Finally, there is a case for changing the present negotiating machinery and having direct negotiations with somebody, whether it be the local authorities or the Secretary of State. There should be direct communication between the teachers' bodies and somebody. There should not simply be some kind of amorphous committee in which no one knows where the responsibility lies. If the rating system goes, or the burden of teachers' salaries is transferred to the Exchequer, there could be a case for direct communication between the Secretary of State and the teachers' associations.
We have an urgent crisis which needs to be resolved soon for the sake of the children. It has been badly handled so far. It has been handled without feeling and without flexibility. Whether I am right or wrong in that belief, we all agree that there is a desperate crisis affecting the education of the children, and that something needs to be done. Some effort by the CAS to bring the parties together would be useful and could bring about the kind of harmony which might produce a settlement.
Some outside organisation such as the CAS ought to look at the ways in which


negotiations are carried out and the ways in which the parties keep in touch with each other. There has been a major failure in the case of education, and something needs to be done about the situation. If the CAS is able to make a contribution to settling the dispute, this late debate will have been worth while.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. George Younger: I propose to intervene only briefly. I am deeply concerned about the appalling situation that this dispute is causing in my constituency and, I have no doubt, in many others, for parents and children. We have rightly talked a good deal about the problems of teachers, with which I very much appreciate and sympathise, but we have not spent enough time considering the dreadful problems facing parents and children.
I wonder whether the Ministers who have been so busy with the dispute realise the effect that it is having on parents who go out to work and cannot find someone to look after their children. The difficulty is particularly acute in areas where there are no buses because of strikes. I have received many letters as well as personal representations on this matter, and I hope that the Scottish Office will put a little more effort into showing some leadership to get help for these people. What I have in mind is that if the Scottish Office or Ministers provided the necessary leadership many people, if they were prodded and asked to do so, might be prepared to look after their neighbour's children. It would make a great difference if that were to happen.
It is vital for the Scottish Office to exercise leadership and to give the people of Scotland some idea of how they can help themselves in these difficult circumstances. I am being entirely constructive, and I think that the Minister should consider what I have said. It is easy to get so involved in trying to solve a dispute that one overlooks the difficulties that are being caused for other people.
My hon. Friends are right to have raised the possibility of the CAS playing a part in this dispute, if only to get the Minister to explain whether that is happening. The alternative is to do nothing, and our constituents expect us to be able to do something in this House.

"It is up to you" I was told by several teachers last week-end, and we have to try to find some way of resolving the difficulty.
I am delighted that the Minister of State at the Department of Employment is present, because he is the right Minister to deal with this dispute. If the CAS cannot help, and if the Minister of State cannot help, who can? The Secretary of State for Scotland has had a dreadful time with this dispute which clearly is not moving towards any resolution, and this is where the Department of Employment and the CAS ought to come in and do something about it.
I repeat that the Secretary of State for Scotland is having a dreadful time, but this is largely the fault of the Secretary of State for Employment and his Department. I hope that the Minister of State will take that as a positive comment and not as a purely destructive one.
Why should the teachers, who are such a responsible body of people, behave in what the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks is an unreasonable way? That is what he has been saying openly during the past few days. The answer is that these highly professional people feel that the only way in which they will get anything is by acting in the same way as the miners, the road hauliers and the petrol tanker drivers who have demonstrated that by being bloody-minded and forcing their view on everyone they can get anything they demand.
I know that this is very difficult, but the Minister of State must realise that because his right hon. Friend caved in to the miners' every demand, people such as teachers and others despair of getting fair play unless they behave as the miners did. I am the last person to encourage them to do so. I am against striking, as are most of my constituent teachers who are on strike, but if one allows the militants to get away with literally anything, one cannot expect others to ignore that.
That is why the Secretary of State for Scotland is carrying the can for what the rest of the Government have done since February, and that is why I am glad that the Minister of State is here, for even if he cannot say anything about that in this debate, I hope he will go back to his right hon. Friend and tell him what a


ghastly mess he is leaving to the Secretary of State for Scotland to clear up and what a dreadful situation this is for parents and children throughout Scotland.

4.21 a.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: This has been a useful debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on initiating it.
The number of hon. Members who have spoken and their contributions have underlined how deeply hon. Members in all quarters of the House feel about this dispute. I welcome the Minister of State, Department of Employment because he can bring a new dimension to this debate, which many of us are urgently seeking in order to try to get a solution to the tremendous difficulties facing us in Scotland.
I do not intend to go over all the problems which we are facing. But it is a crisis. The Minister of State can be left in no doubt about it. It is a crisis, not only for the teachers but also for the children and the parents in view of the disruption of their whole way of life.
We must view this crisis against the much broader background of general industrial disputes which we have sadly had in Scotland in the last few months. I do not intend to go into the merits of the dispute and its problems. They have been dealt with very clearly by my hon. Friends. However, there are one or two points which I should like to make.
First, much of this trouble which has arisen could have been avoided if the Government had retained the relativities machinery which we set up before the last election. This would have made a difference. It would have produced a result much more quickly for the teachers and it would have avoided all this delay. I know that Houghton is working with the best will in the world, and that the Government have the best will in the world in getting the best result possible through Houghton. But delay has been caused by dismantling the relativities machinery and that delay has contributed to the present situation in Scotland.
Second, I want to refer to the consequences of this delay. For one reason or another we have seen, unhappily, a growth of militancy in Scotland. We

have seen a growth of militancy which has led to success for those who have used militancy, in that they have achieved their aims. This has made the present crisis for the teachers that much more difficult and has exacerbated an already difficult situation.
Here I come to the central point of this debate—the rôle of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. This machinery has been operating in other industrial disputes. Yet we have seen that militancy pays. Where militancy has taken place in pursuit of wage claims, awards of up to 40 per cent. have been made. This is a factor which has exacerbated a situation which is already difficult.
I do not decry the efforts of those who take part in this service. Indeed, in the debate on the Gracious Speech I paid tribute to the individual efforts of those involved. But I want to reiterate a question which was put so forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. In operating this conciliation and arbitration machinery, what remit do those operating the service have in relation to the social contract and to the economy as a whole. Many of us have been worried. I know that those in the road haulage industry, for example, have been worried about the extent to which the social contract has been operating, the extent to which the Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been concerned and the extent to which it has been a case of getting a settlement at any price.
My final point concerns how the machinery is to work in the future and whether it is appropriate for these circumstances. If there is to be sense in industrial relations and if we are to avoid inflationary wage and salary settlements and see a degree of sanity restored to the economy, guidelines must be observed and there must be restraint and self-discipline.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the national interest is taken into account, that restraint is accepted and that concern is shown about the inflationary forces? If these conditions are not fulfilled, the future prospects are very serious. This lies at the heart of the crisis in Scotland. When the teachers put their case to the Houghton Committee they believed that they would be treated as a special case. They felt, like other workers in the public service, that because they were in the public service


they had in the past been subject to restraint while other groups of workers had not. This accounts for a great deal of the frustration among teachers. Will the Minister assure the teachers that they are not being singled out by the Government to act as an example to other groups simply because they are in the public service?

4.28 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The debate has ranged over the effects of the Scottish teachers' dispute on parents and children, attacks on Scottish Ministers over their rôle in the dispute, the negotiating procedure for teachers, pay policy —statutory and otherwise—and relativities, and even the possible rôle of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service in the matter.
I do not complain about that because I should like to reply briefly to all these points. The statutory pay control which the Government ended with the termination of the Pay Board in July played a major part in the creation of a serious pay problem in a number of areas of public service. Teachers, nurses, rail-waymen and busmen suffered from a strict application of phases 1, 2, and 3 of the 1972 Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act pay policy to their wages and salaries. For that reason the Government decided that a limited number of special cases must receive a particular consideration which would exempt them from the limitations of the voluntary policy which followed abolition of the Pay Board.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Since the Minister of State has singled out the categories of workers who suffered as a result of the previous Government's pay-policy, will he enumerate the categories of workers who did not suffer as a result of that policy?

Mr. Booth: I do not wish in this debate to enumerate those workers who did not suffer from the previous Government's pay policies. It would not be a long list, if we are thinking of lower-paid workers generally.
In practice, the policy of defining a limited number of special cases for exemption from the limitations of the

voluntary pay policy meant exemption from the social contract wages policy guidelines laid down by the TUC. It was in that context that the Government decided that teachers should be among the special cases.
Scottish teachers' pay covers a wide range of posts, from £32 a week to £125 a week for the highest-paid headmasters. A principal teacher is receiving £70 a week.
In March my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Scotland with special responsibility for teachers, who has sat beside me throughout the debate, invited the teachers to meet him. When their unions did so, their representatives told my hon. Friend that they wanted an independent review of Scottish teachers' salaries, because they had fallen behind under the pay policy operating up to then.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) spoke of Scottish teachers waiting since February. In fact, they received an increase after February under the pay policy the Labour Government inherited from their predecessors when they came to office early in March. It was a statutory policy, and could not be changed until legislation was carried through the House. That is the situation in which one must judge objectively and fairly the difficulties with which the Government were faced in correcting the serious position that Scottish teachers represented to my hon. Friend.
The Government responded to the teachers' request by referring their salary position to an independent review body on 24th May. The Government went further, by guaranteeing to back-date to 24th May any rises resulting from the review body's recommendations—in other words, back-dated to seven weeks after the increase they received under the statutory pay policy of the last Conservative Government. Was not that a recognition that there was a special case to be met? I find it difficult to understand some of the complaints tonight.

Mr. Rifkind: Does not the very concession that any final award will be backdated to 24th May make it clear that the provision of a generous interim award now would not cost the Exchequer a penny more, and underline the foolishness of the Government's position?

Mr. Booth: We are not necessarily talking about a generous award. We are talking about a fair award. We recognise that that might mean a considerable increase, because of the serious pay situation that Scottish teachers suffered under the statutory pay policy. The provision of an interim award has the difficulty that a recommendation in percentage terms covering such a wide salary band must be taken into account that payments for the various grades and posts covered might differ in amount. When one speaks of an interim award one presumably means either a fixed amount to be paid to all teachers or a percentage. There is not the scope in an interim award for the graduations and for the wide range of consideration which is open to a review body.
On 30th September the Scottish Teachers' Salaries Committee was notified of a claim for a 10 per cent. interim payment. On 29th November an offer of a £100 interim payment was made to the teachers' representatives. It was made clear that this would in no way prejudice the outcome of the Houghton Committee's recommendations. This interim offer has been rejected.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) must be clear as to what his adverse criticism of the Secre-tary of State for Scotland is in the matter of the interim payment. Does he think he was wrong, as Secretary of State for Scotland, to seek from the chairman of the independent review body an arange-ment under which an interim payment could be made without prejudice to the review, or is it his position that that action should not have taken place? Is it his contention that his action was wrong only as a matter of timing?
I cannot clearly understand, from what the hon. Gentleman said, just what is his position. He believes that there is something very seriously wrong with the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland, but he has not made it clear whether he favoured the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland insofar as he has responded to the call for an interim payment. The hon. Member for Pentlands has not made it clear whether he thinks the Secretary of State should have to sought to arrange that. I believe that it was the correct thing to do. It could

have made, and it may yet make, some contribution to the ending of this dispute.
Unofficial strike action commenced prior to that offer being made. On 31st October a one-day strike was called by the Education Institute of Scotland. That was followed by a selective series of three-day strikes at selected schools and the boycott of examinations.
One major question posed during this debate was whether there was a rôle for the CAS in this dispute. I wish to suggest four reasons why there is no rôle for the CAS in this dispute before I touch on the more general question of the rôle of the CAS.
The conciliation rôle of the CAS is normally one which is exercised in disputes where a third party is required to assess the contentions and claims of the other two parties—the offer which was made by an employer, the claim made by a union—and whether there is, between those, a possibility of reaching agreement. This is not such a case, because here there is already a third party which was called for by the teachers. That third party is the Houghton Committee. That body is assessing the claim on the submissions made by the Scottish teachers and by the employers. To the best of my knowledge of this matter, that body is about to produce a report. We have the undertaking that the report will be produced by Christmas. That is the first reason why I think it is not appropriate at this stage for the CAS to seek to bring about conciliation or arbitration. The process of the Houghton review is a form of arbitration and should be seen as such.
The second reason is that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be meeting the two sides on Friday, and I hope that the outcome of his discussions will go some if not all of the way to resolving the dispute.
The third reason is that the Remuneration of Teachers (Scotland) Act makes provision for arbitration. That Act was the result of the teachers making clear to a previous Government their dissatisfaction with the method previously used for determining the remuneration of teachers in Scotland. The provisions of the Act reflect the views put forward by the teachers on what they thought to be a more sensible way of determining their salaries.
The provision in the Act for arbitration is clear. It lays upon the Secretary of State a requirement to appoint three arbitrators. There has been no move by any of the parties to this dispute to proceed to that stage of the negotiating procedure laid down by this House in an Act of Parliament.
Fourthly, I reiterate a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). None of the parties to the STSC, none of the three unions, none of the local authority associations and none of the officials of the Secretary of State has asked for the CAS to intervene.
For those four reasons, I think that there is no case for the CAS to intervene.
I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire said that there were no marches or protests by teachers when we had a Conservative Government. It occurs to me that my hon. Friend and I at the hustings led a lot of people to believe that they would receive fairer and better treatment under a Labour Government. So it does not come well from either of us to complain that there were no protests when the Conservative Government were in office. There were no expectations then. When a Labour Government take office, expectations rise of fairer treatment for people in the public service That is one reason why tonight we are considering the special case of the Scottish teachers.
The operation of the CAS in a Scottish dispute can only be judged if there is a clear understanding of the rôle that it can play. It is essential to know why it was set up and what its aims are—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no scope at all? Does he not think that an officer of the CAS could attend the meetings on Friday? Unfortunately, previous meetings between the Secretary of State and the management side and the associations have been disastrous. There appear to have been personality conflicts as well as disagreements on matters of fact.

Mr. Booth: I do not think that it would be advisable to have an officer there, for reasons which I have already pointed out. The existing machinery for the determination of the matter has not

been exhausted, and no party has sought to request this form of conciliation.
The CAS was set up by the administrative action of the Government as an independent body, and it was on that basis that it received the full co-operation of the TUC and the CBI. The council of the CAS has three respresentatives from the CBI, three representatives from the TUC, three independent members and a chairman. It has experienced staff in every region and it can be approached by either side to a dispute. It is not a substitute for existing procedure agreements. The CAS officers are reluctant to intervene or to seek to intervene in disputes while there are stages of an existing procedure agreement to be completed. What it can do is to help to establish procedure agreements and to overcome difficulties of procedure, and this it frequently does.
It has been asked whether the CAS has responsibility for the social contract. It is in no way responsible. No conciliator provided by the CAS has a duty beyond seeking to find whether there is a basis for agreement between the parties to the dispute. It would make the job of conciliators impossible if it were known before they went in that they were under instructions only to assist in settlements at particular levels, whether on social contract guidelines or at any other fixed level.

Mr. Douglas Hurd(Mid-Oxon): Does the Minister realise that the social contract is in desperate danger and that the latest news in this morning's newspapers underlines that danger? How do the Government expect people to take the social contract seriously when CAS officials seem to be scurrying up and down Scotland helping to arrange for employers and trade unions to break it?

Mr. Booth: I find it hard to choose which of the arguments put forward by Conservative Members to answer. The CAS is accused on the one hand of scurrying up and down Scotland encouraging people to break the social contract and on the other hand of not involving itself sufficiently in disputes in which the social contract is threatened.
I take seriously the dangers that threaten the social contract. I am as conscious as any other hon. Member how much depends upon the success of the social contract. But that does not blind


me to the fact that we are operating a voluntary wages policy. That policy requires responsibility for wages settlements and salary settlements to be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the two parties to the settlement—namely, the unions and the employers. If the view is taken that a conciliation service, whether Government or independent, can operate only in circumstances in which it will be tied to the type of settlement that it can bring about we shall reduce the effectiveness of the service, reduce confidence in it and reduce the call upon it. There lies the way to destroying the effectiveness of the CAS.
This will be a matter for the House to decide. The Government intend to propose to the House very shortly in the Employment Protection Bill that the CAS be established on a statutory basis and that certain of its functions be defined in legislation. The time will then be appropriate for the House to discuss what the statutory rôle of the CAS should be.
As we shall propose the matter to the House, the Secretary of State will seek to retain power to set up a court of inquiry into a dispute. We would intend such a court to be used only as a very last resort. Government intervention in disputes in Scotland could make it impossible for the CAS to retain the measure of confidence which it has built up among employers and unions.
It is important to recognise that the initial calls upon the CAS show that it started work with a considerable measure of goodwill from both sides. In the first month there were calls from over 100 firms for the conciliation rôle. There is no sign of this diminishing. But, in addition, over the last month the CAS has visited 500 firms to give advice on industrial relations matters and has been welcomed to do so. Therefore, we must see that part of the rôle of the CAS is not only to go along with the hoses after the fire has started but to go and do a prevention job as well by offering industrial relations advice. In Scottish disputes the CAS has acted in the road haulage dispute. The CAS arranged for numerous meetings, and a final settlement of that dispute was reached under CAS auspices.

Mr. Hurd: In breach of the social contract.

Mr. Booth: Did the hon. Gentleman say "In breach of the social contract"?

Mr. Hurd: The Secretary of State said that.

Mr. Booth: As I have pointed out quite clearly, it is no part of the remit of the CAS to ensure that settlements are outside or inside the social contract. If hon. Members take the view that that should be part of the remit of the CAS, they will probably have to table an amendment to the Employment Protection Bill when it comes before the House and debate that matter properly.
The CAS was also instrumental in bringing about the final settlement in the Hoover dispute at Cambuslang.
In the situation which exists in Scotland, the CAS will not be able to perform miracles, but, given a fair chance, it will continue to achieve settlements and provide for arbitration, advice and counselling. To the extent that this will enable industries and services in Scotland to work more effectively, it will bring a benefit to the whole of the Scottish community.

Orders of the Day — TEA AND FLOUR (SUBSIDIES)

4.52 a.m.

Mr. John MacGregor: As I rise to open the debate at this late hour—although "totter" might be a better word—I become more than ever convinced of what I have long believed —that physical stamina is the first quality required of Members of Parliament. I ask the House to forgive me if I am not at my best. I used to be a night bird. Since becoming a little older I have become an early morning bird. But this is the twilight period between night and early morning, and I have never tested my qualities at such a time.
My hon. Friends and I wished to initiate a debate on these two Supplementary Estimates, in relation to tea and household flour, for two particular reasons. The first reason is that since June, when there was a very brief discussion on the household flour situation at the time of the debates on the Act


dealing with prices, there has been no opportunity for the House properly to debate the order on household flour.
The second reason is that these two orders, like many others, raise issues in relation to food subsidies which go to the heart of the matters we have raised from time to time about food subsidies. But—and this is the significant point— much has changed in the situation since the original debates in which these major issues relating to food subsidies were fully discussed.
Perhaps I should get one matter out of the way at the outset. The Minister and several of his right hon. and hon. Friends have frequently argued that the Opposition's attitude to food subsidies since the General Election has been illogical. They have quoted from the Conservative Party manifesto, in which we said:
With the urgent need to stabilise prices we accept that it will be necessary to retain these subsidies for the time being.
I emphasise that we said "retain" not "increase".
The main reason for this was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself during his recent Budget Statement when, in relation to the phasing out of subsidies to the nationalised industries, he made the point that with the very large sums involved it was difficult to unscramble the situation in a short period. In an inflationary period, the same thing applies to food subsidies. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not retreat solely behind that defence this morning but will also deal with the other issues we wish to raise.
Perhaps I may elaborate the reasons why I think that since the original debates on the food subsidies there has been a change in the situation and, therefore, a need for clarification of the Government's intentions. First, there is the size of the increase—£21 million in the two Supplementary Estimates we are discussing and £72 million in relation to the Supplementary Estimates for the food subsidies as a whole. I am aware that there is provision in the Prices Act for subsidies as a whole to rise to £700 million and we have not reached that point, but we are seeing a situation in these estimates where there is a substantial rise in the total for food subsidies. It is right that Parliament

should be able to express a view on the direction in which these increases are being made.
There is also a change in the economic situation particularly with the Budget of last month, and especially its revelation of the size of the Government borrowing requirement. There is also a new situation with wage increases which have a direct relationship to these subsidies, as I hope to show later.
Since the election, there has been no Government statement on the broad principles of food subsidies or their future attitude towards them, in relation to the changes to which I have drawn attention. It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to query not only the direction of individual subsidies but also the principle, the extent and the expansion of food subsidies in general in these changed circumstances.
We have chosen these two Estimates because they are related to the latest orders. But the points arising out of them are relevant to the wider arguments on food subsidies and will serve to illustrate the growing worries many of us have as the subsidies are extended. The first argument is one we have often heard advanced, from the Government side, sometimes more strongly from one group but not fully advanced by others—namely that these subsidies are a particular help to those in need, to pensioners and those on lower incomes and so on. The Under Secretary, in a debate on tea, said that 53 per cent. of the subsidy went to those earning less than £50 a week and that for flour, the figure was 52 per cent. Those figures were given on 19th November.
The figures related to those earning less than £50 a week, but what we should like to know from the Minister tonight, in relation to tea and household flour, is the appropriate percentage for those earning less than £30 a week, which is much more relevant to need. These two orders will cost £21 million this year and we would like to know the position in a full year. We know that on tea it will be £29 million, but on both, it must be approaching £40 million. These are large sums, but to what effect?
I believe I am right that for old-age pensioners, for whom the case has been advanced by the other side, the subsidy effect is about £1 a year, and that for the average household the effect is about


£1·60 a year. For household flour, from my calculations—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it is at most 75 pence per annum for the average household and one assumes, rather less for the pensioner households because they use such flour less.
So this subsidy for the consumer is extraordinarily thinly spread and for those less well off, even more thinly spread. Many of us could make suggestions as to what could be done with that £40 million. For example, it could be used for special groups in need, or to aid pensioners who face problems of rural transport or to provide concessionary bus fares for old people generally, many of whom are unable to get them because their local authority does not give them through exercise of their discretion. Such ways of spending the £21 million would be much more directly relevant to those most in need.
One argument has been advanced by the Government on this question, namely, that because the subsidy is spread to everybody but the proceeds come from the higher taxes from the more highly paid, it is an effective way of redistributing income and wealth. That argument would stand up if there had been an increase in the higher rates of taxes directly to provide the £21 million for the subsidy, or alternatively if there was a proposal to reduce the higher rates of tax if the subsidy had been taken off. But there is no suggestion of that.
Therefore, we suggest that, since in any case there is higher revenue from the higher rates of tax amounting to £21 million, it would be much more effectively applied in other directions than on these subsidies. On the argument about the relationship to need and those who are less well off, we need a much stronger justification for the tea and household flour subsidy than any which the Government have yet put forward.
My second argument is a wider economic argument in relation to subsidies as a whole but is pertinent to the question of tea and household flour. It concerns the inconsistencies of the Government's subsidy policy. I make no apology for referring again to an extract from the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to nationalised industry prices. He talked first about subsi-

dies being of two sorts and said that the second was compensation for price restraint. He stated:
It is the escalation in this latter type of subsidy which we set out to reverse and, since our initial attempt has not fully achieved its purpose, we must continue a sustained assault on the problem until it has finally disappeared. In particular, as my predecessor fully recognised, to provide large subsidies for the prices of energy runs completely counter to our national objectives on energy conservation and energy policy generally".
One could argue in relation to food subsidies that, whereas it may not be a question of energy, it runs counter very strongly to the need to restrain consumption and not to expand it in specific areas, and it runs counter also to general balance of payments economic objectives.
For as the Chancellor of the Exchequer later said in his speech:
If we are to correct the large structural distortions which have affected our economy over recent years, with too much going into consumption and too little into investment and exports, it is inevitable that from time to time steps should be taken which will raise consumer prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 268 and 279.]
If that is what the Government are doing on nationalised industry price and subsidy situations, it equally applies to food subsidies.
The only justification which the Government have given on this point since the election are two extremely feeble points raised by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who said in the same Budget debate that nationalised industries subsidies were prime subsidies—that is, not directed to the domestic consumer alone. But the effects of the removal of these subsidies on a whole range of industrial products come through to the consumer, and there is also the important export argument.
The second reason which the right hon. Lady gave was that in a nationalised industry situation there was no discrimination in favour of the small consumer or less-well-off people. I have made it clear in relation to tea and household flour that that equally well applies to food subsidies. The point was well put in the debate on the tea order by an hon. Member who made clear that, assuming that there will be about a 15 per cent. increase in electricity prices, the extra that that will produce in order to heat a kettle to make a cup of tea will


increase the costs to the pensioner at almost precisely the same level as the tea subsidy will reduce the cost of the tea bag. Therefore, there is a gross illogicality in the Government's argument. What is right in one area of Government policy should be right in another.
The third point concerns the effect of the distortions on the economy as a whole and on particular products as a result of subsidies. I accept that the argument is stronger in other areas of food subsidies, such as in the milk subsidies and their effect on cheese and butter and in the expansion of consumption of liquid milk, than to the particular products that we are now discussing. But there are distortions also in tea and household flour.
In tea, for the first time for many years, demand is beginning to exceed supply. I am told that the world price of tea in auction is now firming up. The Government are encouraging the consumption of tea, if only marginally, so this raises a wider question: if the raw material cost of tea is to rise, as seems likely, are we to increase the subsidy in place of a rising price? That is a question to which I should like to hear the Minister's answer tonight.
There are distortions in the way in which the subsidy on household flour is operating, which, although small, are nevertheless indicative of the wider distortions in other subsidies.
At present the subsidy applies only to 3 lb. bags. I am told that confectioners and many bakers normally use 56 lb. bags. I understand that now, to gain the benefit of the subsidy, many are going to supermarkets and cash-and-carry stores and buying 3 lb. bags in place of the 56 lb. bags. Packaging costs are rising all the time, and there is a great difference between the number of 3 lb. and 56 lb. bags that they have to buy in terms of packaging costs. Therefore, there is a distortion in the market here.
I turn now to another general argument, because I believe that so far there has been slim justification, in the various arguments, for tea and household flour subsidy. This, too, is a small, but significant point. I refer to the administrative

costs involved in these subsidies, especially on flour. Because of the way in which the subsidy operates, the forms required, which firms are normally filling in weekly to improve their cash flows, create great accounting and administrative difficulties and increased paper work for the big firms, but even more for the small firms, of which there are many, particularly bakers in relation to bread subsidies. This comes on top of the many other strains on these small firms, small retailers, bread producers, and so on.
Therefore, I should like to put one practical point to the Minister which has been made to me by a number of people who are being affected by the subsidies. Now that the subsidies apply to practically all bread and flour, would it not be worth while making the subsidy operate at the miller's point where there are many fewer forms to be filled in rather than at the multitude of positions where they have to be done at present?
I conclude on two much more important matters. The first is the general argument whether the enormous sums that we are talking about are better concentrated on producer or consumer subsidies. At this late, or early, hour I do not wish to go into the whole argument, but it seems that month by month, when the expansion of home agriculture becomes even more crucially important, so much concentration on consumer subsidies is misguided. For in terms of home agriculture the effect of consumer subsidies is indiscriminate. Indeed, in many cases it adds to our balance of payments difficulties.
I accept that this is true more of other subsidies—the bread subsidy in relation to wheat and the cheese subsidy where, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman would say, only £2½ million is involved in subsidising foreign cheese, but £2½ million is a significant sum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech correctly indicated that he was confined to the subsidies on tea and flour, but he is now beginning to stray into the wider area in too great detail. I must ask him to come back to the specific subsidies on tea and flour.

Mr. MacGregor: I was about to say that although this point applies more to other food subsidies, the effect on the balance of payments here is not insignificant either. This aspect is particularly important, bearing in mind the National Institute for Economic Research view this morning, to which there was reference in an earlier debate, that there is a considerable likelihood that in the next year there will be an effective further devaluation of the pound. So we need much more justification of the Government concentration of these high sums—up to £700 million— at the consumer end rather than the production end.
Finally, the effect in combating inflation is one of the main arguments put forward by the Government for these subsidies as well as others. The NIESR report this morning more or less concedes that the social contract has failed and suggests that the likely rate of price inflation next year is 25 per cent. So if the food subsidies are meant to be part of the social contract, they have not been successful in their purpose. I have already referred to the miniscule effect of these subsidies on individual consumers and the retail price index. I could just see some justification for them earlier in the year in that they held down the index, even if only marginally, and had some effect on threshold payments. But that argument has now disappeared with the end of threshold payments and I fear that now these subsidies could act the other way and add to inflationary pressures.
This is partly because they may be financed through additions to the Government borrowing requirement, but also because of the effect on wage settlements. We are seeing a possible result of this kind in the baking industry, but it could spread to other areas. The Secretary of State for Employment said on 2nd December, about the bread question, that settlement at the rate then being discussed, of up to 66 per cent., would mean either a higher price or a higher subsidy. The Government, he said, have not yet said which. A higher price would bring home to the consumer the consequences of excessive wage settlements. A higher subsidy would encourage the unions in the industries to which food subsidies apply to seek high wage rises in the belief that the consumer would be protected from the results of their action.
We all share the Government's objectives of protecting those most in need and of combating inflation, but we fear that food subsidies are doing neither. The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection said on 10th August that these subsidies could not be a permanent feature of the economy. As recently as 11th November, she repeated that in the long run the Government hope to be able to phase out subsidies in the interests of other kinds of social expenditure. The last part of that statement is crucial, for part of our case is that these other kinds are better ways of using the funds available.
As we see these extensions of food subsidies, with ever-mounting costs and ever-increasing distortions, conflicting with other economic objectives, and without compensating successes for the social contract, we fear that food subsidies are not working. That is why we are for a clear Government statement tonight.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Hurd(Mid-Oxon): As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) has pointed out, we have tried to choose the exact description of this debate with some care to fit into our general approach to the question of food subsidies. For some time we have consistently taken the view that a massive structure of food subsidies was pernicious but that it obviously could not be swept away overnight because of the hardship which would be caused. It was natural, in trying to define the subject on which we were seeking a debate, that we should concentrate our attention and anxiety on new subsidies, and not on those which simply increase existing subsidies.
The tea subsidy started in September. Perhaps it is a pity that we did not vote against its introduction. Maybe we can make amends for that by debating it now. My first point deals with the extraordinary contrast building up between the Government's general approach to public expenditure and their approach to spending on food subsidies, particularly those subsidies such as the tea subsidy. This is a subsidy which will cost £29 million in a full year.
There is a range of similar-costing items in the estimates. For example, hill farm grants total £22 million. We know


of the hardships which many of our hill farmers are suffering. The total provision in the Estimates for artificial limbs and cars for disabled people is £22 million. For law-and-order protective services in Northern Ireland—that is, extra pay for the police, prison services and so on— there is an extra £32 million. These are all items which, anyone would accept, are of great value enabling us to pursue policies acceptable to us all.
I am sure that in pressing for these sums Ministers had to fight hard in Cabinet committees and maybe even in Cabinet itself. There is a complete contrast between that approach, which emanated from the chancellor's Budget speech—the cautious approach to public spending—and the blithe way in which these subsidies are multiplied almost, it seems, without thought of argument.
I can imagine the Secretary of State going to the Cabinet saying that she wanted to bring in a tea subsidy and being told, "Only £29 million? Are you sure you do not want more? After all, we have £700 million set out in the Prices Act and we have not nearly spent all of that yet. Could you not manage to find some new subsidy? Could you not manage to spend a little more on tea?"
That seems to be the approach to expenditure on food subsidies, in complete contrast to the frugal approach to other matters. The total of £700 million in the Prices Act comes into particular relief this week when we find that the Secretary of State for Defence is proposing to disrupt the Armed Services——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed a fairly wide debate but I must ask the hon. Member to return to the specific sub-heading of tea and flour.

Mr. Hurd: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was simply that there is a difference. The tea subsidy is a completely new item of Government expenditure costing £29 million a year. When we turn to defence or other items of expenditure the whole approach seems to be much more restricted. Many more sacrifices are required on such items, whereas additional expenditure on this sector of public expenditure seems to go blithely ahead without proper control.
In the current crisis there is obviously room for intelligent discussion between

people with different opinions about the claims of public expenditure, public investment, taxpayers, ratepayers and so on. Our criticism of the policy leading to these two sub-headings is that it is irrelevant, either to the arguments of those who believe in public investment as a first priority or to the arguments of those of us who believe that we must watch levels of tax and rates if we are to create real wealth. This policy, embodied in the Supplementary Estimates, is not investment in a true sense but investment in consumption, in distortion and in waste. It is cruel of the Prime Minister to ask the most intelligent of his colleagues to preside over the least intelligent of his policies.
The arguments for the tea subsidy put by the Under-Secretary of State in our earlier debate justify attention. He argued —and it is a continual argument—that it represented a saving on the retail price index of the magnificent sum of 0·1 per cent. He fits into a long tradition by this argument.
Successive Governments have paid too much attention to the retail price index as such. They all seem to have believed that there is some magic in it. But I have felt for some time that this is a fault in the general approach to prices. People do not eat the index or drink it or go shopping with it. It is something they read about in the papers, and they do not believe it or pay much attention to it. It had a real and practical significance when the Government of the day linked a wages policy, including threshold agreements, with the index, but that chapter closed last month. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will consider whether the Government are not still paying too much attention to the index as such.
In the debate on the tea order, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) made an interesting point about the psychological impact of the prices of particular foods. That is getting closer to the mark, and I do not think that tea comes into the category. My list of psychological foods, for example, would include meat, fruit, vegetables and bread.
The other main argument of Ministers for the tea and other subsidies is that they help the social contract and help to achieve restraint in wages. That argument is full of holes. My hon. Friend the


Member for Norfolk, South referred to the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, published in today's newspapers. It is a serious indictment of the social contract, as applied hitherto, as a political arrangement between the two wings of the Labour movement. It suggests that these subsidy arrangements have not had any perceptible effect in restraining inflation and may have had an opposite effect. That is a serious indictment.
Eventually, there is to be the phasing out—early, one hopes—of food subsidies. The Secretary of State has said that they should be phased out. What machinery exists for reviewing them? Is there a committee in the Department looking at the level of food subsidies month by month and asking how the Department can follow the Secretary of State's advice and phase subsidies out? For instance, does it ask, "Can the tea subsidy go down or be eased out?" We all know the machinery for increasing or inventing food subsidies. What is the machinery for carrying out the Government's policy that, where possible, they should be run down or phased out?
Authority for that approach comes in another passage in the third Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when, talking about fuel, he said:
Fuel bulks large in old-age pensioners' budgets. But the best way to help pensioners is to increase pensions, not to sell fuel to everybody far below its cost."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 255.]
What is true of fuel is true also of food, and by that statement the Chancellor blew out of the water the policy that he was expecting his colleague the Secretary of State to apply, and the case for these two subsidies was demolished at the same time.
I firmly believe that we are entering a new ice age as regards the resources of this country. We are only just beginning to grapple with the problem, and the Government and the Labour Party have been slow to grasp the implications of it. Over the next two or three years we shall debate over and over again how to keep minimum standards in our social services, education, and so on, and how to prevent rates and taxes rising to wholly unacceptable levels.
In this new ice age there will be plenty of room for honourable and intelligent controversy, but a policy of scattering the resources of the nation in a haphazard system of subsidies is, in this new situation —whatever the original argument—a deception and a wasteful fraud.

5.26 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I shall be as brief as I can, and it will be easier to be brief because the heart of the matter that is raised by these two new subsidies has been put so admirably by my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd).
We have to ask ourselves and the Minister precisely what is the purpose of these subsidies. We are told sometimes that this is meant to help the worse off, the poor and the pensioners. It is rather strange to hear it said that this is to help pensioners because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the increases in fuel costs, electricity charges and other energy price increases that will result from phasing out subsidies to the nationalised industries will bear particularly on the old. All the surveys and statistics show that although food represents a larger-than-average proportion of the budget of the non-pensioner poor, for pensioners it is in line with the national average, so there will be no specific benefit to them from these subsidies.
If we want to help pensioners, why not ask them how they wish to be helped? We are talking about a lot of money. The figure here is £21 million, and about £40 million in a full year. If pensioners were asked how they wanted to be helped, I am sure that many would say with transport costs, half-price television licences, and so on. Many more pensioners would like help with the TV licence, instead of just the few who get it in sheltered accommodation. The rest have to pay the full amount. I put down a Question to ask what would be the cost of half-price television licences for all old-age pensioners. The answer was £15 million, yet here we have an expenditure of about £40 million on just these two items, tea and household flour.
When we are talking about these figures, let us not forget that the cost of the Government's monstrous imposition


on the self-employed is £21 million. That tax, which will cause so much hardship, could have been remitted completely for less than the cost of these absurd subsidies which will be dissipated so widely that nobody will benefit from them. There is no justification for these subsidies.
If the Government intend to subsidise food in this way, it is better to make sure that we subsidise home-produced food and sustain our farmers on whom we shall increasingly depend in the years ahead. Perhaps this is part of the social contract—that tattered non-document. We have already heard the verdict of the National Institute, which is that the social contract is likely to produce in the coming year an inflation rate of between 20 and 25 per cent.
The National Institute Report says that the social contract, with settlements anticipating inflation, is compatible with virtually any future rate of inflation. If that is the case, what is the value of the social contract? If the social contract is compatible with any rate of inflation, what is the value of attempting to get a social contract by having these subsidies on tea and flour? We shall require an answer to that question.
The purpose of the subsidies may be to do something about the problem of inflation. But how can it be said that holding prices down artificially is the answer to inflation, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said that putting nationalised industries' prices up is the answer to inflation? He cannot have it both ways. Suppressing the symptoms of inflation will never cure it. We have to get at the cause. These vast nationalised industries are already subsidised to the extent of £1,000 million. He said that we could not allow the existing state of affairs to go on, that costs had to be reflected more closely in prices, and that we had to avoid the uneconomic use of resources, the collapse of financial discipline and an unacceptable level of support by the Government.
Those same sentiments were echoed by the last Labour Government who introduced food subsidies. This is no new idea. It was tried and found to be a ghastly fiasco by the immediate post-war Labour Government. The food subsidies bill mounted higher and higher. There

were new subsidies all the time like these subsidies on tea and flour. With the subsidies went shortages. I was reading in the Library last night reports of the debates on sugar shortages. Whenever there is a Labour Government there is a sugar shortage. Eventually food subsidies have to be limited because they get out of hand.
The late Sir Stafford Cripps in his 1949 Budget speech said:
… that just cannot go on.
It was projected that food subsidies would go up to £500 million, which by today's standards would be £1,500 million.
We must call a halt … prices have got out of all relationship with realities …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2085].
That is what Sir Stafford Cripps said about food subsidies in 1949.
There are two ironies in the situation. In fact, they are worse than ironies. First, food subsidies do nothing to stop prices rising. The only way in which the Government can hope to stop prices rising by means of subsidies is by increasing the subsidies and introducing new ones, and then we have this great burden on public expenditure. There is a once-for-all halt on the price increases which are going to take place, but the inflationary forces at work in the economy will in no way be abated by existing food subsidies. Any short-term dent can be made only by the introduction of yet another subsidy. May we know, therefore, how many more new subsidies the Government intend to introduce?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member occasionally takes a gulp from his tea cup but then he strays from it and lets it get cold. We cannot have a question about new subsidies. That is out of order.

Mr. Lawson: I shall try to keep the tea as warm as I can, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the policy on food subsidies is this £700 million the absolute ceiling? May we have a guarantee on that? Are the tea and flour subsidies harbingers of further subsidies? I must not go into that point.
Another problem is one which was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon. It goes back to what was said by Sir Stafford Cripps. It is that the further we get into the situation in which prices bear no relationship to reality, the


more people are isolated and insulated from the inflationary consequences of their action and the more they are insulated and isolated from the economic realities with which we have to grapple.
That is a dangerous and irresponsible course to follow—as dangerous and irresponsible as cutting VAT from 10 per cent. to 8 per cent. when the country is psychologically prepared for hard crisis measures which are necessary because of the borrowing requirement and so on. We cannot continue with a borrowing requirement of £6,300 million, rising for ever. We cannot expect to sustain our standard of living on borrowed Arab money. We have to pay our own way and to get to grips with reality. That will have to be achieved by telling the people the truth and by not making them imagine that by putting a subsidy on tea and flour and subsequently on something else our economic problems can be wished away.
The Government have had their two elections. There is now no need for the electoral propaganda saying that the terrible problem of food prices can be dealt with by putting subsidies on food. That may be a deplorable or morally unattractive practice, but these things sometimes happen in politics. Elections are won by bribes and by mis-statements of the economic truth. That has been known in the past. But the elections are over now. The food subsidies have served their purpose of helping to win the elections. Now may we get back to reality and abolish the policy?

5.39 a.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I wish to express my anxiety about the new subsidies on tea and flour, costing, as they do, in the current year over £35 million. I begin by expressing my sympathy to the Under-Secretary who has to reply to the debate because it is clear from what two Cabinet Ministers have said that there is a serious difference of opinion on the matter even within the Government.
My hon. Friends have quoted what the Chancellor said in the House on 12th November. I want to underline two of the remarks he made then and to refer to the remarks of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in the House on the previous day. Speaking about nationalised industry prices, the

Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 12th November:
I have set it as my objective to phase out these subsidies completely as fast as possible." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c.268.]
Earlier in the same speech he had said:
In general we must reduce and eventually remove subsidies of all kinds … the best way to help pensioners is to increase pensions, not to sell fuel to everybody far below its cost."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November; Vol. 881, c.255.]
I emphasise the words:
In general, we must reduce and eventually remove subsidies of all kinds.
How can it be consistent with that commitment by one of the most senior members of the Government to have the two additional subsidies that we are debating?
That was not all. The day before the Chancellor's Budget statement, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection said in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison):
I have aways made clear that in the long run our hope is that we might be able to phase out subsidies in he interests of other kinds of social expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November 1974; Vol. 881, c.8.]
We do not have to look only to statements by Ministers to find justification for our anxiety about these two additional food subsidies. The Labour Party manifesto had something to say as well:
We have … Subsidised basic foods—bread, flour, butter, cheese, milk and tea—
—adding in immortal words—
in a way that gives most benefit to the least well-off".
With that quotation very much in mind, I have asked a Question of the Undersecretary, to which he replied on 19th November as follows:
The estimated cost of food subsidies in the current financial year is £500 million … it is estimated that about 33 per cent. of this expenditure will be received by households with an income of less than £40 a week, which contains about 32 per cent. of the population. About 52 per cent. of the expenditure will be received by housholds with an income above £50 a week, containing about 52 per cent. of the population."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c.403.]
That aspect, among others, causes me great concern. A month after the publication of the manifesto, containing the statement that subsidies had been arranged in a way that gave most benefit to the least well-off, the hon. Gentleman


was saying that only 48 per cent. of the total spent on food subsidies went to households with an income of less than £50 a week.
The money spent on food subsidies— £500 million this year—would be much better spent if it were used to increase the rate of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. Indeed it would have been preferable to give a family allowance, which at least is subject to income tax and to the special rates of tax, for the first child, rather than to given subsidies in this indiscriminate way.
I next refer to the principle of subsidies in the light of the remarks made by the Chancellor on 12th November. Subsidies to the nationalised industries and on food encourage the British people to believe that somehow they and the Government can opt out of the real world. Subsidies in this form provide a positive incentive for us to believe, at a time when the harsh truths of economic reality should be uppermost in our minds, that we can opt out. However, we cannot opt out. The difficulty is that the Supplementary Estimates under consideration this morning will be very greatly increased by this time next year. The Government will discover that, once embarked on, a policy of food subsidies will prove to be an immensely difficult course from which to retreat.
It is relevant, when we are considering this sum of £500 million in the current year, to remember the overall economic situation in the country as well as the public sector borrowing requirement, which has increased from £2,700 million in March to £6,300 million in November. In the space of eight months the public sector requirement has risen to the astronomical figure of £6,300 million.
The economic crisis, as it is now called, will, I fear, be nothing when compared with the economic hurricane which will blow across Western Europe, and notably across these islands, in the coming months. Every item of public expenditure needs to be scrutinised with the greatest care. I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us that the new subsidies on tea and flour are not a portent of an ever-greater Government commitment to indiscriminate subsidies and an ever-greater inclination to flee from economic reality.

5.48 a.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: The lateness of the hour has in no way dimmed the eloquence of my hon. Friends or diluted the excellence of their argument. Perhaps it is in the cold, hard light of early dawn, and within the context of the cold, hard light of the present economic situation, that we should be considering the whole question of food subsidies, in particular the two food subsidies.
During the discussions on the Prices Act, we made it clear that we felt that subsidies were wasteful, indiscriminate and very expensive. The fact that we did not vote against the Act does not mean that we shall automatically give carte blanche to any and every subsidy (hat the Government might think of introducing in the interim period. All my hon. Friends have put forward alternatives to provide in each case more effective help for families than will be provided by the tea and flour subsidies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) displayed a generous attitude towards the tea subsidy. I have worked out that the tea subsidy would be worth, in the case of pensioners, about 1½p per week, at the most about 78p per year, and, in the case of families, not very much more than that pro rata. This is based on the consumption rate of three ounces which the hon. Gentleman gave in the debate on the order. That is 78p a year to a pensioner family, at a price of about £29 million. But for about £9 million the Government could have given the pensioner another £10 bonus in six months, which is considerably more. The argument was also advanced that family allowance for the first child would have been much more helpful than all the subsidies put together, and that again is true.
In the case of flour, the subsidy is worth about 1½p a week to the average family of two adults and two children, so, in terms of help to poorer families and to pensioners, that is the significance of the two subsidies that we are discussing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) referred in passing to the fact that the Secretary of State is limited in the number of items on which she can introduce subsidies. She can


introduce them only on the demand in— elastic foods. Those items on which every family spends most—demand elastic foods such as fresh meat, fresh fish, fresh vegetables and fresh fruit— cannot be subsidised for that very reason, so that any food subsidy can be of only marginal benefit to poorer families and pensioners simply because it is not possible to subsidise the items which account for most of the food bill of the average family, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged from the outset.
I do not think that we have heard— and perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us—to what level of expenditure in a full year the flour subsidy will amount. We have not been given that specific figure.
We come back to the tea subsidy and the administration of it which the hon. Gentleman said in the debate on the order would not be very expensive. He said that there would be some differential between qualities of tea and that this would not apply to higher-priced teas. But he gave no details. The Ministry of Agriculture Food Facts monthly survey gives three different qualities of tea. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the matter closely. Will he tell us which of these ranges of tea subject to the survey come within the subsidy and which do not?
I want to put on record that the Opposition object very strenuously to the subsidisation of convenience foods. This was made clear during our debates on the Prices Bill. For some reason, tea bags have been included in the tea subsidy. This is the most expensive, wasteful and unnecessary subsidised food among the whole range of subsidies introduced so far.
According to a parliamentary Answer given by the Under-Secretary on 2nd December, the subsidies have so far cost £221·5 million, before a single maximum price has been fixed. It was generally agreed that where foods were subsidised, a maximum price must be fixed. I appreciate that the Prices Act was not enacted until July and that consultation had to take place, but, for all that the Government know, there may have been no benefit so far from the subsidies. They do not know what prices have been charged for those foods which are sub-

sidised. There has been nothing under the law to stop anyone selling these goods for precisely what he liked. There is evidence that the smaller size loaf has until recently been selling for more than what the fixed price will be.
It has been said by chief officers of trading standards that they will find it practically impossible in any event to enforce the price-fixing order because it is so complicated, apart from the fact that the maximum price lists which will have to be displayed will add to costs and may, in the case of tea and flour, add more to costs than the value of the subsidies themselves. So this is another very doubtful aspect of these subsidies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon questioned the criteria that the Government use when deciding which foods to subsidise next. The impression can be gained that there is a morning meeting at the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection when everyone sits round a table and asks, "What can we subsidise next?"
Of course, before the last General Election it was announced with due pomp and ceremony that tea and flour subsidies were to be introduced. The Government were landed with them. Possibly they received them a little less willingly after the election.
I now turn to the important point which was raised during the debate on the tea order—namely, the four lost days with which the Minister will be familiar. The House will know that the order which was brought before the House lapsed between 16th and 20th November. Government money had been paid out without the approval of Parliament. The Minister may not think that that is serious but it is a serious constitutional matter. He airily told the House that there were precedents. He said that arrangements could be made for an ex gratia payment. But he did not tell the House the nature of the precedents. Apparently he did not know.
Later, during business questions, the Leader of the House said that steps should be taken. It is more than two weeks since the debate took place on the order and the House has still not received the courtesy of a reply from the Minister or from the Leader of the House as to what


steps will be taken to put right this extremely unconstitutional matter of approving payments without the sanction of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will tell the House this morning. If he does not we shall have to call the Leader of the House to come here and to tell us exactly what will be done. Parliament will not be treated in this arbitrary way by the Minister. It is an insult. I hope that he will be able to provide this information when he winds up the debate. We want to know exactly what steps he will take to put the matter right.

Mr. Gow: Perhaps not only the Leader of the House but the Attorney-General should come to give an explanation of the matter.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am somewhat disturbed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). I am in some doubt whether her remarks whether certain action was constitutional come within the ambit of the debate. As far as I can conclude, we are discussing the worthwhileness of the tea subsidy. I doubt very much whether the question of constitutional procedure can be introduced.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am out of order. I understood——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made the point and she should leave it at that.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I apologise. I must be labouring under a misapprehension. I have not seen on the Order Paper anything to indicate that the subject of the debate is the worthwhileness of the tea subsidy and the flour subsidy. I thought that in generally discussing the tea subsidy and the flour subsidy it would be admissible to introduce the fact that public money has been paid out without the authorisation of Parliament on the tea subsidy. I believe that that is an important constitutional matter. No doubt the Minister will provide the House with a full explanation when he winds up the debate. I hope that he will also answer the specific questions that have been put to him by my hon. Friends as well as their general arguments.
In future we shall be looking carefully at the orders which come before us separately to introduce further subsidies. Whereas the bulk of the subsidies that have been introduced have been within the context of the Prices Act, the situation is now very different. We have a positive duty in the present economic climate to think hard about whether we shall allow the passage of any more wasteful, indiscriminate and socially unhelpful subsidies.

6.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): This has been a useful debate in that it has allowed us the opportunity of considering the policy lying behind the subsidy schemes which the House has considered on a number of other occasions.
Running through the speeches of those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate has been something of a misapprehension, to which I ought to draw attention. A number of hon. Members have referred to the tea subsidy and the flour subsidy as being new. This novelty can scarcely be sustained in the light of the fact which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) made plain —that both these subsidies had been announced some time ago. The flour subsidy was introduced by means of an amendment to the Bill which became the Prices Act, and that was fully debated by the House on 12th June. Therefore, this does not represent in any sense a departure from Government policy. Likewise, a tea subsidy was announced back in September.
Although we are debating these Supplementary Estimates tonight, the normal provisions have been made for the payment of these subsidies through the Contingency Fund arrangements. Therefore, it does not follow that in making the arrangements for the payment of these subsidies the Government are embarking upon any new course or are expanding the programme of subsidies. I hope that we can get that aspect of the matter clearly on the record.
The hon. Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) and for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) all sought to suggest that a new situation had developed in the last eight weeks, as I understood them, which should lead to a


complete reappraisal of the Government's policy on food subsidies. I take it that what they mean by that suggestion is that they must now find some way of parting company with their election manifesto, which recognised that
With the urgent need to stabilise prices we accept that it will be necessary to retain these subsidies for the time being.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South quoted those words.
I do not know what their manifesto meant by the phrase "for the time being." But hon. Members have not made a case which suggests that the economic situation has so changed in the last eight weeks that this policy should be abandoned.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not so much the economic situation which has changed so drastically in the last eight weeks as the fact that the Government are at least admitting it?

Mr. MacLennan: I beg to differ from the hon. Lady. Her hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South made the point that the economic situation had changed, as did the hon. Member for Blaby. They both tried to argue that case. The hon. Lady may not share their point of view, but that was their case. My case is that there has been no dramatic change in the situation, particularly in respect of the rate of inflation, which would lead us to abandon this policy at present.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Maclennan: I hope that hon. Members will allow me to continue. They have made quite long speeches. It is only right that I should have the chance to develop the case which I know hon. Members are anxious to hear.

Mr. Lawson: But the hon. Gentleman should not distort.

Mr. Maclennan: I must begin by reminding hon. Members of the reasons why the Government embarked on this policy and why we intend to continue it. We undertook to introduce a programme of food subsidies taken against a background of sharp increases in the prices of essential goods and services. At the beginning of the year food prices were rising at an unprecedented annual rate of

20 per cent. This might be regarded as tolerable by the well-off, but to the old age pensioner couple it meant that an extra £1 per week had to be found to cover the additional costs of food as compared with the previous year. For the housewife shopping for her husband and two children the additional cost would be of the order of £1·50 per week.
It was increases of this kind which were compelling the lower income groups to seek higher wages. Otherwise they could not hope to keep their larders adequately stocked, still less to lay by a store for the future—which some people apparently regard as a reasonable precaution. I do not propose to discuss the merits of food hoarding. Whatever merits hoarding may have it is certainly not possible for vulnerable sections of the community, such as pensioners and large families with low incomes. These were the people we set out to help through food subsidies.
We do not pretend that we have stopped food prices from increasing. This would not be practicable. But what we have done is to hold down the overall increase. As a result of the measures we have taken, the typical pensioner couple are spending about £6·50 per week on food instead of nearly £7, while the family of two adults and two children are spending about £12 a week instead of nearly £13. Subsidies are therefore making a real contribution to maintaining the standard of living of poorer households.

Mr. MacGregor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I have hardly begun to develop my arguments. I have many questions to answer and there are other debates to follow.
A number of the hon. Members who contributed have asked the Government's intentions about the future of the subsidies programme. The Queen's Speech confirmed the Government's intention to continue to use subsidies to hold down the price of a range of basic foodstuffs. The detailed arrangements for implementing this decision will be announced soon, when we introduce a short Bill. We shall also take the opportunity to make a number of minor changes in the powers relating to subsidies and price regulation.
A number of hon. Members have sought to imply that the flour and tea subsidies being, as they put it, new, we were in some way expanding the allocation of money. That is not so. In the March Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a total allocation of £550 million for expenditure on food subsidies in the current financial year. Of that amount we shall have spent about £500 million to keep the present scheme going. Next year we plan to keep the subsidy programme going at broadly the present level. At this stage I am not prepared to be more precise about the Government's longer-term proposals.
Several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), saw some incompatibility between the objectives of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of phasing out subsidies to the nationalised industries and our purposes in respect of food subsidies. Hon. Members fail to understand the different considerations which apply. The main point about the nationalised industries subsidy which has been made is that at this time we must discourage wasteful consumption of energy and bring home to consumers the immense drain on our resources brought about by the high cost of importing oil. With regard to energy, we have no option but to make the largest possible savings in expenditure. But food accounts for a large part— indeed a disproportionately large part— of the expenditure of low-income households, which are the main beneficiaries of the subsidy programme.

Mr. Gow: What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about old-age pensioners and subsidies in the nationalised industries was this:
Fuel bulks large in old-age pensioners' budgets. But the best way to help pensioners is to increase pensions, not to sell fuel to everybody far below its cost".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 255.]
Will the hon. Gentleman try to understand that increased pensions are subject to tax and therefore the better-off pensioners pay the tax, whereas the Government subsidy benefits all alike?

Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor not only made that point

but announced the pension increases we propose to make. I accept and understand the importance of increasing old-age pensions at this time in order to help to offset the substantial increases in the cost of living.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke of the commitment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the phasing out of subsidies to nationalised industries being implemented as fast as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has made it plain that we do not regard food subsidies as being a permanent feature of the economy. They were introduced to meet particular circumstances, and when those circumstances no longer exist we shall do as the hon. Gentleman suggests and phase them out. But this would have to be done——

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Mrs. Sally Oppenheim rose——

Mr. Maclennan: I have twice given way to the hon. Lady and I must make this point. At the moment, however, we do not accept that the economic climate is right for the removal of subsidies, and we shall continue to use them as part of our prices policy.
Having made those general remarks about the background to the tea and flour subsidies, I turn to some of the points raised about the two subsidies. We selected tea because it was of particular importance in the shopping basket of the elderly and the lower income groups. The highest level of consumption is found in those groups, and we recognised that after a long period of stability there had been increases in the retail price of tea this year and therefore it was an appropriate commodity to subsidise.
An hon. Member suggested that there had been some distortion of trade in consequence. If that is so, it is very marginal and as yet we see no evidence of a more than temporary trend. However, we shall watch this situation very carefully. The country is not at present experiencing any difficulty in obtaining normal supplies of tea.
The cost of the tea subsidy at the moment is £29 million. That is a considerable sum, but we believe that the scheme will be cost effective. The immediate savings will be enjoyed by all sectors of the population, but the well off,


as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem unwilling to admit, will, in effect, bear the cost of the subsidy through increased direct taxation.

Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I will not give way again until I have developed my argument further.
I turn now to the choice of household flour for a subsidy. The House considered this matter on 12th June and accepted the introduction of the subsidy at that time. We have no evidence that this has affected the supply of and the demand for household flour. We think that it is of value again, particularly to the elderly members of the community and the poorer families whose consumption is substantially higher than that of people with larger incomes. We consider that that in itself is sufficient justification for choosing flour as one of the commodities to be subsidised.
I conclude by referring to the lapse in the statutory powers for the payment of the tea subsidy to which the hon. Member for Gloucester referred. As I explained to the House on a previous occasion when the tea order was being debated, there was an unfortunate misunderstanding in my Department about the method of calculating the period within which the order had to be approved by Parliament. As soon as the mistake was drawn to our attention by officials of the House, all further payments under the scheme were stopped.
The consideration in our minds at that time was whether it would be appropriate to cancel the payments made on that date. Only one day was affected. We took the view that it would have been unfair to innocent claimants of the subsidy to do that. There is no question of the payments being illegal. Payments, as I explained on the earlier occasion, can be and, indeed, frequently are quite properly made on an ex-gratia or extra-statutory basis in circumstances where statutory authority is not immediately available.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: On that point——

Mr. Maclennan: I will develop this point and then welcome an intervention

by the hon. Lady if she is still in doubt about the position.
Expenditure on food subsidies up to a total of £700 million was provided for by Parliament in the Price Act 1974. The payments were clearly within the spirit and intention of the enabling legislation. The fact is that there was a minor—I emphasise "minor"—technical error. I cannot accept, as the hon. Lady asserts, that this is a matter of great constitutional importance or that legislation should be promoted to remedy the defect.
Certain hon. Members have asked, as did the hon. Lady, about precedents for this kind of action. There are a number, as I said in the debate on the order. If hon. Members care to look at any edition of the Appropriation Accounts, they will see that ex-gratia or extra-statutory payments are by no means unusual.
I do not want to weary the House on this matter at length, but, because I have been asked for a precedent, I will give one of several that I could give. In 1959, under a Conservative Government, a problem arose under the Marginal Agricultural Production (Scotland) (No. 2) Scheme. Offers of grants were made after the scheme had lapsed and before a new one had come into operation. The offers were technically invalid but it was recognised that it would have been unjust to deprive the payees of payment, and the position was covered extra-statutorily.
In those cases in which provision has been made, public faith has been pledged and innocent third parties will have been prejudiced if payments are withdrawn or cancelled as a result of a temporary defect in the statutory powers. It is the duty of the House to maintain close control of public expenditure but this control is in no way weakened by the reasonable exercise of discretion in particular cases.
This has been a useful debate which has allowed me to clarify the Government's position about continuation of the subsidy programme. Perhaps not all the many questions have been answered, but I hope I have answered the major ones.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the legislation to which the Minister referred, in order to make adjustments to the subsidies, in reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) relating to the machinery which will be used for phasing out subsidies?

Mr. Maclennan: I would advise the hon. Lady to await the publication of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK

6.23 a.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising the subject of the work of the Health and Safety Commission under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974, and of the Executive, which is due to start its work on 1st January, which is only three and a half weeks away. On that dale this mighty Act will bring into force new and stringent penalties in respect of all existing legislation designed to protect employees at work. The new enforcement procedures, including improvement and prohibition notices, will come into effect and the entire new structure will be administered by the new Commission through the new Executive.
On 1st April, the Act itself comes into full force and will produce the most mighty changes in British industry of any Act this century which will remain permanently on the statute book. The Industrial Relations Act was more real and harmful in its day, but that day, happily, has turned to permanent night.
The Health and Safety at Work Act is almost identical to that originally produced by a Conservative administration. The amendments made by the Opposition when the Act was brought in by this Government are likely to be wiped out before long and the Act itself will be here permanently. With that new superstructure imposed on top of existing legislation and designed to curb the carnage of industrial accidents, it is vital to know how the Commission and the Executive will operate, particularly as that operation is due to start so soon.
I have an interest of sorts to declare, in that for several months I have been writing and lecturing about this Act. I have come to regard it as a potentially well-muscled weapon which can destroy at least some of the unnecessary suffering caused in industry. It can help avoid at least some of the deaths and wretchedness summed up in the Annual Report for 1973 of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories. In 1973 he tells

us there were 272,518 reported accidents, of which 549 were fatal.
Over the course of the years thousands of our people are killed at work in circumstances which in some cases are completely avoidable. This Act will not put an end to death and injury at work. What it will do is to cut accidents and to enable the most stringent penalties to be imposed upon those who do not comply with their duties. Further, the Act will extend those duties across industry to hospitals, schools, broadcasting studios, theatres, concert halls, launderettes—to all those areas previously uncovered and unprotected.
The Act will extend the protection beyond employees, to neighbours, visitors and the general public. All the enforcements and penalties are to begin operating on 1st January. From that date infringements of the Factories Acts, even without any accident having occurred, could lead to imprisonment for up to two years and to a fine of unlimited amount. It is, of course not the intention that these penalties should be frequently imposed. On the other hand, it is vital that the Government should inform industry that the penalties are there and will inevitably be imposed if the law is flouted and unnecessary danger and death caused to workers or others.
What steps is the Minister proposing to take between now and 1st January to inform management in particular, and workers within industry, of the new penalties which the law imposes? These are penalties which in their way, are more powerful than any that have ever been introduced into this country with the intention of protecting those who would suffer through an infringement of the law. It is crucial that full information about the penalties be given immediately to the public, to act as a warning of what may happen if the safety rules are not complied with in future, as required by the Factories Acts, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, the Mines and Quarries Acts and all regulations made under this and similar legislation.
What plans does the Minister have for giving information to the public about the new Act in its entirety—those sections which come into force on 1st January and those which come into force on 1st April? Because the House showed such


agreeable unanimity in the passing of the Act, because there was no great row and parliamentary outcry, because there were no redoubtable clashes across the Floor of the House which got into the headlines or on to the television screen, most people do not even know of the existence of the Act, which is certain greatly to affect their lives, and in some cases to save their lives.
But the Act will make more wretched the lives of offenders against the basic safety rules which should be complied with for the protection of workpeople.
I ask my hon. Friend next about the extent to which the Commission and the Executive have been set up. As far as I know, neither management nor labour has any substantial information as to the setting up and working of either body. We know that Bill Simpson is the new chairman of the Commission and that it is established. But what is it doing? What has it done? What precise steps has the Commission taken in order to start carrying out its functions on 1st January.
The Executive is set up under the Commission. What steps have been taken to create the Executive? Who are its members? With four weeks to go, we are entitled to know who has been appointed. Has anyone been appointed? What secretariat is the Executive to have? What is the money that is the subject of this part of the Consolidated Fund to be used for?
The Factory Inspectorate is presumably still to continue to enforce the new rules as it has done the old. Some individuals, in the main, will continue to do their jobs. The Act provides that the Executive shall be charged with enforcement and may delegate its powers to local authorities. Are those powers to be delegated, and, if so, how?
The Executive itself retains enormous authority. Is it to be used? I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to supply me with one figure. How many extra factory inspectors are to be appointed? By using simple arithmetic, which is as distorting as most statistics, it would appear from the Chief Inspector's report that each factory is likely to be visited once in every year. In fact, I understand that because some factories and workplaces are visited very often, others are

visited scarcely at all. Indeed, the average workplace may be visited perhaps only once in four years.
In these circumstances, the Act is likely to be self-regulating. What matters is that people should understand what is in it, and, individually as employers and collectively through trade union representatives, ensure that safety measures are satisfactorily worked out and enforced within their own units. But enforcement will be necessary from the outset. The existing number of inspectors will not suffice. Once in every four years is not enough to visit even the best-regulated workplaces so as to keep management on its toes.
What is being done to ginger up the inspectorate and to strengthen it so that it may perform its work much better under the new rules than it has been able to do under the old?
Next, the inspectorate itself is acquiring new powers, some of which are far more potent than industry realises. For example, an inspector may seize and destroy any article or substance which he regards as presenting an imminent danger to life or limb. If he does so incorrectly, he could himself have to bear the cost of his mistake.
But what of the cost of prohibition notices wrongly served? Suppose an inspector considers that a particular industrial process is dangerous and creates an imminent danger of serious injury. His duty will be to serve one of the new notices, a prohibition notice, a form of procedure that comes into effect on 1st January. The unfortunate industrialist or management has to comply with that notice, on pain of potential imprisonment for two years. Those who receive the notice have a right to appeal to the industrial tribunal, and the tribunal may, if it sees fit, rule that the prohibition notice shall be suspended, or that it shall not apply, or that it shall apply only with variations.
If the prohibition notice is correctly served, that is the end of the matter so far as the law is concerned, and the industry or the management in question will have to change the process, or alter the machine, or scrap it or, indeed, as happened in the Flixborough case, close down altogether. But what if the prohibition notice is incorrectly served? In that case, the process will have been halted in its


tracks for hours, or days, or even weeks, before permission is given for it to restart. The cost to the industry or company may be enormous, and the cost will include, in many cases, the laying off of employees, and possibly their permanent unemployment.
I ask my hon. Friend to tell the House who will bear that cost. The Act provides that the inspector may be indemnified, but are the public then expected to pay the cost? Or is the industrialist to bear it himself? These questions require answers before 1st January, because that is when the new enforcement procedures including the prohibition notices, come into effect.
If an improvement notice is served the situation is not nearly so serious, because the effect of the appeal will be to suspend the operation of the notice. But an operation that is prohibited can cause great chaos within an industry or an individual unit.
If that notice is justified, it is right that it should have been served, because the service of it may itself save life. But if it is wrongly served, industry is entitled to know what the Government consider would be its rights to remedy the wrong to which it would have been subjected.
Finally, the appeals are made to industrial tribunals. They have had a somewhat chequered career, starting as redundancy tribunals, spreading to deal with unfair dismissal cases, having to deal with them without the benefit of trade union members, having been weakened at a time when they needed strengthening, and now being strengthened again by people with shop floor experience. Now they are to deal with appeals under this Act. Under the employment protection proposals they will acquire still further powers and duties. Under the Equal Pay Act they will, as from the end of the coming year, have still more burdens to bear. I ask my hon. Friend to tell the House what plans have been made by the Government for the strengthening of these tribunals, so that they can do their job properly.
Also—this is of great importance to workers in industry—what consideration has been given to the provision of legal aid to these people who appear before industrial tribunals? There are cases in which, if the tribunals uphold a certain decision, it may in due course involve

prosecution not only for management but also under Section 7 of the Act for the person concerned.
Clearly this Act is intended to impose new duties, in the main, on management, and new penalties on directors, secretaries, managers and others who act in that capacity. But it also provides exactly the same penalties for employees who do not co-operate in the carrying out of safety measures for their own protection and for that of others. In those circumstances, when both employers and employees are to be required to take new safety measures and to carry out the old measures with renewed enthusiasm, I ask the Minister what he is doing now to prepare the way for 1st January and 1st April. These are important questions. They deserve an answer, and I am sure my hon. Friend will provide one which will satisfy the House.
I should like publicly to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend and his team for bringing in this statute and for the work which I know they are doing in order to see that it is implemented. The Act is a magnificent result of the work of my hon. Friend, and when he retires in 20 or 30 years, or moves to another place, he will always be able to look back with pride at having been instrumental in producing an Act which should save so many lives and do so much good in industry. But to create the structure is only the beginning. What we now need to know is how that structure is to be kept alive, and how it is to operate in everyday practice as from 1st January.

6.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner, for his kind and generous remarks. I also congratulate him on bringing a freshness and briskness to our debates, for which, after a long hard night, I envy him.
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend stressed the importance of this Act. He equally recognised that our understanding and appreciation of its importance has not been as widely shared and understood as one might hope. He described it as a mighty Act, bringing in great changes, and he referred to it as being a permanent feature of the statute book, unlike some of the other Bills which


we have debated in recent years, which have been the focus of a tremendous amount of public attention but none the less have been of a transitory nature and have had an ephemeral life. As he says, this Act is here to stay. It is a mighty new superstructure which has been superimposed on existing legislation.
I welcome the enthusiasm that my hon. and learned Friend has for the legislation—an enthusiasm that he has brought to the debate. He asked a number of questions, which I shall try to answer. If, because of ignorance or omission, I fail to answer any of the points, the Department will write to him to rectify the error.
Perhaps I may usefully start by explaining what may be described as the latest state of play. The Act received the Royal Assent on 31st July this year and we made an order for its commencement on 27th August, bringing in the provisions of Parts I, II and IV in stages. Some of the provisions take effect on 1st October, some on 1st January next and the remainder on 1st April 1975.
The 1st October provisions established the Commission. On 1st January it will take over most of the existing health and safety at work responsibilities and functions of various Ministers. The Executive will become operational and the staffs of the main health and safety inspectorates, together with the Medical Advisory Service and the Safety in Mines Research Establishment, will be transferred to the executive. The new powers and procedures under the Act will be brought into use on that date—and that includes the power for inspectors to issue improvement or prohibition notices with arrangements for appeal to industrial tribunals.
I welcome the stress my hon. and learned Friend placed on the new and severe penalties provided by the Act. It has been a source of understandable criticism that the Factories Act, for example, provides for a maximum penalty of £300. The Act that we are discussing provides for a maximum of £400 on summary conviction, in line with the magistrates' courts' legislation, but unlike the Factories Act the new legislation provides for prosecutions to be taken on indictment for which the penalty is either an open-ended fine or, as my hon. and learned Friend said, a penalty, for some offences, of up to

two years' imprisonment. These are severe penalties compared with those already operating.
At 1st April next year the remaining provisions in Parts I, II and IV will be enforced. The inclusion of the general obligations will have the effect of bringing fully within the scope of the Act all persons who work—employers, employees and the self-employed, excluding only private domestic servants. Protection is also provided for the first time for members of the public where they may be affected by the activities of people at work. This brings about 5 million workpeople into statutory protection for the first time, including, for example, workpeople in educational and medical establishments.
The chairman of the Commission and six members from the TUC and the CBI were appointed immediately the first provisions took effect on 1st October. Two other members, representing local authorities, were appointed in mid-November. There is still one vacancy, because the Act provides for the Commission to be composed of nine members in addition to the chairman. We have sought to make the commission as representative as possible. The local authorities are represented because they are substantial employers and because they are enforcement authorities. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend realises the difficulty of trying to make the last appointment of someone who is as representative as possible of the various groups and organisations for which we have not yet been able to provide in the Commission. We have invited a large number of organisations to consider people who might make a contribution and play a useful role in the Commission, and so the remaining place is yet to be filled.
My hon. and learned Friend asked what the Commission had done so far. It has met eight tunes in the last two months and it will be meeting for the whole of Thursday 5th December. It has been considering its broad policy objectives and the guidance it will want to give to the Executive when it is appointed on 1st January.
Among the matters that have already been considered by the Commission are enforcement policy, the financial and manpower requirements of the Executive


for the next financial year, and the allocation of enforcement work between local authorities and the Executive. It also proposes to consider, before the end of the year, its policy on the appointment of workpeople's safety representatives and the disclosure of information by inspectors. In addition, it has considered the structure of the advisory committees that it will need to help it carry out the functions, although it has not yet decided what structure is appropriate. It is looking for a way to involve industry more effectively in improving industrial health and safety, and has decided to set up immediately an expert committee to advise it on major hazards. It hopes to be able to make an announcement shortly about the membership of the committee.
My hon. and learned Friend asked for details of the membership of the Commission. The nominees who have been appointed on the submission of the TUC are Mr. Terence Parry, Mr. Glyn Lloyd and Mr. Peter Jacques. Representing the CBI are Mr. Martin Jukes, Mr. Ray Richards and Mr. Martin Cobb. The names of the local authority representatives are Mr. Frank Bushell and Mr. James Anderson.
My hon. and learned Friend also asked for information about the executive. I must ask him to be patient a little longer. We are about to make an announcement, but one or two details are still to be decided. That is what inhibits me from giving a fuller statement.
Another of my hon. and learned Friend's questions concerned the steps we are taking to give wider publicity to the Act and its provisions, and to the obligations it will impose on employers and workpeople alike and on the self-employed, and publicity in the interests of the public. I think that the Commission will wish to make one of its priorities an active and effective information and publicity service, designed to make the most effective impact on both sides of industry and the general public. A chief information officer has been appointed and a nucleus of information staff, backed up by my Department's information directorate, is already in post. The Commission and the Executive are setting up a comprehensive information branch.
During the transitional period close liaison will be maintained with the rele-

vant information staff in the other Departments involved—the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and so on—so that the valuable expertise built up in those Departments will not be lost. The Commission will shortly consider its programme of publicity, using all the media to further both its immediate and long-term aims.
In the meantime, there has been a succession of Press announcements, and leaflets about the Act have been widely distributed throughout industry. Inspectorates and other bodies coming within the Commission's scope are providing extensive advice to industry on the subject, giving talks and taking part in seminars throughout the country. There is, among those who will be directly affected and those professionally engaged, a tremendous amount of interest, which I see manifested in the conferences and seminars organised by such bodies as the Industrial Society, employers' associations and the TUC and individual unions. I have been invited—I have been delighted to accept the invitations—to take part in a host of these media activities.
One of the obligations imposed by the Act is that companies will have to include in their annual reports to shareholders information about what they are doing on health and safety matters. Apart from the immediate obligations that it will impose on companies, this will generate an interest in the Act and the obligations it imposes.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is this obligation not subject to the making of regulations? My recollection is that the director's reports will have to contain this information only when the regulations so require. If that is so, are the regulations in course of preparation, or is this one of the other matters?

Mr. Walker: I shall refer to that point later, when I hope to clarify it.
In addition to the matter we have already discussed, the Act lays down an obligation on the employer to prepare and revise, as necessary, a written statement of his general policy in regard to health and safety arrangements and to bring such statements to the notice of all his employees. The point is subject to regulations, the preparation of which is in hand. There are also arrangements for


a code of practice giving general guidance on written statements.
I was also asked about the delegation of enforcement responsibility. The Act provides that enforcement will be carried out not only by the Commission and its inspectorates but by local authorities and certain other bodies which will be acting on an agency basis, such as the National Radiological Protection Board, acting for the Health and Safety Executive. Regulations will need to be made under Section 18 of the Act defining the extent of local authorities' responsibility. We think that at this stage, although it is very largely a matter for the Commission, local authorities will undertake enforcement at commercial, as distinct from industrial, places of work. The Commission has given consideration to the allocation of the enforcement functions, and the local authority associations are being consulted.
I refer to those organisations which will be undertaking enforcement on an agency basis. These will include, for example, the Scottish Industrial Pollution Inspectorate—which is responsible for the enforcement of the Alkali Acts in Scotland—the Railways Inspectorate, the Pipelines Inspectorate, and the National Radiological Protection Board.
I was asked to indicate the strength of the inspectorate and the additional financial obligation arising from the new burdens imposed on the inspectorates by the Act, which calls for the expansion of the inspectorate, as foreshadowed in my statements when the legislation was discussed. In July 1974 there were 702 inspectors of factories in post. We anticipate that by April 1975 that figure will rise to 802 and that by April 1976 it will rise to 910. In respect of mines and quarries the July 1974 figure is 125 in post, remaining fairly static over the next few years. There were 77 inspectors of nuclear installations in post in July 1974, rising to 120 by April 1976.
We envisage that policy branches and inspectorate support staffs will rise from 960 in July 1974 to 1,046 by April 1976. In the Employment Medical Advisory Service, we envisage an expansion in both medically qualified and non-qualified personnel from 266 in July 1974 to 329 by April 1976. In the Safety in Mines Research Establishment, we envisage a modest expansion over the same period

of about 18 personnel, and another modest expansion in the administrative staff covering legal, secretarial and corporate services and information, planning and statistical services. We propose to seek a further increase of 100 in the Factory Inspectorate by April 1976 over and above the figure I have just given, if they can be recruited. My hon. and learned Friend will recognise that it is not only a question of having the cash available but of having people available who have the right qualifications and the vocational dedication that we look for in inspectors.
My hon. and learned Friend asked about the nature of the inspections carried out and the period of inspection. He will know that in the 1920s the ILO made a strong recommendation that inspections of industrial premises should be carried out at not less than one-yearly intervals. We have never been able to achieve that. I do not know whether it has been achieved in other countries, but we have never had the resources to permit this. Given the enormous number of establishments now within the scope of the new legislation, it becomes less practicable than before unless Parliament is willing to devote a very much larger sum to an enormous expansion of the inspectorate, and we recognise that that is not on at present.
The Robens Report made recommendations about the kind of inspection carried out. It expressed doubts whether routine inspections of establishments of all kinds, irrespective of the degree of danger and risk inherent in the enterprise, was perhaps the right way. It recommended that there should be more in-depth inspection of establishments where it was known that there were specific dangers or greater degrees of danger than in others.
In pursuit of that objective, the inspectorate has embarked on an experiment which may lead to a reorganisation, depending on its outcome. There are two trial schemes in operation, one in the North-East, based on Newcastle, and the other in the South, based on Slough. The results of these trial schemes and the views expresed in representations which have been received about this reorganisation—some of them from hon. Members —will be taken into account when the


decisions are made about the future structure and redeployment of the inspectorate. We hope that this happens before the end of February.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it the intention of the Commission to change the form of investigation by the Factory Inspectorate? At the moment, the factory inspector tends to be a man of broad experience who will look over a factory in toto and advise, and, if necessary, institute prosecutions, rather than a specialist in a given subject It has been suggested that under the new Act it will be necessary to have specific specialists in, say, electronics or construction engineering, especially in those areas of construction engineering where there are many injuries. Perhaps a team of people would go to a site where accidents had occurred. Is there any intention of examining in this kind of depth the method of inspection?

Mr. Walker: There has been a natural tendency, in response to the changing technology of industry, for the specialist inspectorates to emerge within the existing arrangements. This will not only be carried forward into the future but will be one characteristic of the new unified inspectorate arising from the bringing in of inspectorates which, hitherto, have been connected with other Government Departments. I think immediately of the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate, the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate and the Nuclear Inspectorate. They will continue to have their specialist roles and specialist functions. Even within the Factory Inspectorate there has within recent years been a tendency to have specialist inspectors for chemical hazards and radiological hazards, for example. This trend will inevitably continue because of the changing character and the technological demands of industry, hence the need to have people who have skills in particular technologies.
I have repeatedly said in the House and elsewhere—this was one of my criticisms both of the Robens Report and of the proposed legislation presented by the Conservative Government of 1970–74, and is not a political point—that in recognising the inevitable limitations on the size of the inspectorate and the great difficulty of providing adequate monitoring and

inspection of the working situations that will now come within the scope of the new Act, it seems that there can be effective monitoring only by having some augmentation, some supplement, to the Factory Inspectorate. That is why the proposals for workpeople's safety representatives were introduced after the recent General Election when the present Government took office. That is one of the significant changes which we introduced. I think that it will go a long way to meeting the gap that might otherwise have existed in our monitoring and inspection arrangements.
I am not suggesting that we shall look to the workpeople safety representatives to be an embryonic factory inspectorate or a surrogate factory inspectorate. However, because the representatives will know their own work situations and their own processes they will be able to monitor effectively. We shall seek to make arrangements that will enable them to have ready access to the Factory Inspectorate when there is a matter that should be brought to the notice of the inspectorate or when they need advice that is perhaps not readily available from other sources.
My hon. and learned Friend raised the point of the possible effect of misapplication of a prohibition or improvement notice, and particularly a prohibition notice. A notice may have been applied and it may have emerged that it was inappropriate—perhaps a misjudgment or error on the part of the inspector—thereby giving rise to losses on the part of the employer which he should not have incurred in all fairness and justice. My hon. and learned Friend was asking how an employer in that hypothetical situation could obtain legal redress.
My hon. and learned Friend with his knowledge of the law will know better than I the folly of me seeking in advance of such a situation arising to anticipate or suggest what a court might decide. In Section 26 of the Act there is provision which gives power to the enforcing authority to indemnify the inspector. I think implicit in that is a recognition that such a situation could arise. It could in such a situation be a matter for the court to decide, but clearly that section was drafted on the assumption that there is a real possibility of its arising. The


sort of sum that could be involved in such a hypothetical situation will serve to ensure that prohibition and improvement notices will be issued only with great care and caution having been taken beforehand.
My hon. and learned Friend asked about the industrial tribunals and their composition in relation to dealing with appeals which may arise under the Act and, because of the particular nature of the appeals, their competence to deal adequately with them. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend has seen the statutory instrument that was laid before the House on 28th November.

Mr. Greville Janner: I have seen it. I know that they have the powers. I was asking whether they would have the number and the strength.

Mr. Walker: I understand that the Council on Tribunals—I think that is what it is called; my hon. and learned Friend will know better than I—because there is this provision in the statutory instrument to which I have referred, will have the assistance of assessors who will have the appropriate background, experience and knowledge, and that consideration is being given to drawing up a panel of other people with the necessary knowledge and experience.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the matters raised by my hon. and learned Friend. His final question, to which I have not yet responded, was what consideration was being given to the provision of legal aid for those appearing before tribunals. We hope that the tribunals will continue in the informal way which has characterised them so far and that it will not be necessary in this kind of situation to have legal representation. My hon. and learned Friend will know that the chairman has to be a legally qualified person, and he can very often be relied upon to give legal advice when necessary.
I see that my hon. and learned Friend is shaking his head in some reluctance to agree to that point. If he feels strongly about this matter, I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Walker: I hope that I have covered the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend. I apologise for having detained the House for longer than is cither advisable, perhaps, or in the interests of hon. Members at this hour.
I conclude by expressing my gratitude to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this matter. It has enabled us once again to focus some attention on what I agree with him is a crucially important matter. He was expressing the view that there had not been the kind of interest for which one might have hoped for such an important measure. I recall my own words on Third Reading of the Bill which became the Act. I said:
It is a matter of deep regret to me that the world at large showed little awareness of the existence of the Bill or its significance until disaster shattered the life of a happy and peaceful little Lincolnshire community. The horror of Flixborough has, I believe, seared into everyone an awareness of the dangers with which we live and work. I hope and believe that it has completely scourged any complacency about health and safety at work. It may be grim consolation to the tragically bereaved families."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 417.]
but let us hope that the measure we sent for implementation to the Commission and the Executive will ensure that we never have such a tragedy again.
I wish my hon. and learned Friend every success with his book, because I am sure it will help industrial health and safety.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY

7.14 a.m.

Mr. David Crouch: The House is being asked to consider giving greater assistance to the coal industry. It is this subject to which I shall address myself at this hour of the debate. I do not know whether I should call it a late hour or an early hour. It is certainly the beginning of a new day. In some ways it is the beginning of a new day and a new era in the coal industry.
Like all the other manufacturing nations of the western world, we are facing a very grave energy crisis. I need not elaborate on that. It is a problem that is in front of everyone today, in all the countries which are expanding industrial nations. In this country, we, like others, have to find a way out of the


crisis and as I see it there are four main routes out of our energy crisis—North Sea oil, North Sea gas, nuclear power, and coal.
We differ from some other major industrial powers, particularly in Europe, in as much as we have oil, coal, gas and nuclear power. I was recently in France, discussing with French Government officials, as a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, their problems of electricity generation. I was interested to learn that in France, a country without oil and now without coal, the French are concentrating resources and investment on nuclear power.
If I remember rightly, they spoke of a target of generating as much as 50 to 55 per cent. of their electricity by nuclear power by the end of the century, so there was no question where priority for the French Government lay in finding a solution for the energy situation in France. For our part, we have decided that, notwithstanding the remarkable good fortune which has come our way in discovering all the vast resources of the North Sea, the oil and gas, and our pioneering of nuclear power for peaceful purposes, we are determined to re-establish coal and coal mining as a viable business.
I do not seek to question that decision. I have always been a believer that coal had a place in our energy complex and have always maintained that it should have had a more important place than it has had in the last 10 years. We are now facing a change of direction for the industry, after 20 years of contraction.
The question is, how can we stop what has been happening? How can we stop the decline in production, albeit enforced? We have seen plans in recent years, but the plan the Government and the NCB have shown us during 1974 has not been over-ambitious. It errs on the side of caution, perhaps on the side of reality. The output target for 1973–74 is about 120 million tons, and, as I understand it, production is running behind that target. A figure of 6 million to 7 million tons is being set. We are approaching Christmas, when productivity always goes up, and miner friends have proudly told me how productivity has been going up.
Could the Minister comment on how we are to achieve a target of 123 million

tons before Christmas? If we fall below that target, we should not assume that the targets of future years will be too difficult to achieve. I shall understand if they are but we must never be downhearted in this.
We tend these days to be downhearted about the coal industry. I was downhearted at the decision of the National Union of Mineworkers to reject the productivity scheme which the miners debated and eventually voted on. But I was not dismayed, nor was I taken by surprise. I should have been surprised if the miners had made that leap forward after the problems they had been through and the decisions they had taken in the past 25 years. They have been asked to make a great change of direction in their pay structures. We should remember that.
My mild approach to the situation of the miners does not mean that I do not regard their task as being enormously serious, and we expect of them a great deal more than we are getting. But I recognise that they have been asked to change their direction in a traumatic way and perhaps it was too much to have expected to happen in one ballot. But I hope that in the next ballot, which I trust will not be too long in coming, they will break out of the restrictions in which they find themselves.
The National Coal Board believes that the target of 120 million tons of deep-mined coal a year can be increased to 135 million tons by 1985. This, plus an addition of 5 million tons to the present 10 million tons of opencast coal, will give a total output of all types of coal of 150 million tons by 1985. These are realistic targets and they are attainable. But they cannot be attained by machinery and capital investment alone. We still depend on muscle, on men.
In June this year the NCB announced a massive capital investment programme, which I welcomed, to spend £1,400 million by investing in new machinery and new ideas over the next 10 years. That is an addition of £600 million to the existing commitment to spend £80 million a year every year in a continuing rolling investment programme. This shows confidence in the industry that capital expenditure will produce its reward.
That confidence did not start with the present Government. I am not seeking to make a strong political point, but it


began under the last Conservative administration with the Coal Industry Act which introduced an investment of about £1,100 million in the coal industry and was an earnest of our intent.
The present investment programme has three main objectives, and they are very good objectives. It is not simply a case of pouring in money; it is money put in to achieve positive results in greater production. This is the way out of the energy crisis. The first objective is to extend the lives of existing pits by gaining access to new reserves. The NCB anticipates that by 1985 this could realise as much as an additional 9 million tons a year.
The second objective is to increase output levels at existing pits, which could produce as much as 13 million tons a year. This is more difficult to achieve. I should be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the question of increasing output levels at existing pits.
The third and perhaps most exciting objective is the investment to open new mines. This is the new chapter in the long history of the coal industry. The new mines in South Yorkshire—Selby is the magic name now, and it is as exciting as any of those names in the North Sea to which we pin such hopes—can produce for us, with this new investment and recruitment to man the mines, as much as 20 million tons a year by 1985. Therefore, this investment by the Coal Board, if it is realised, can produce more than 40 million tons extra by 1985.
The NCB, describing its belief in the wisdom of such investment, said:
To safeguard the industry's capacity, existing collieries must have life-saving injections of capital".
This short debate is about the life-saving injection of capital. I believe that it is a necessary injection and it is life-saving, but that is not all. If we do not inject new capital into the industry, if we do not pass this and successive measures to produce this big investment, what will be the position of the industry?
I have here a most interesting commentary from The Sunday Times of 24th February by Mr. Keith Richardson. The Minister, Mr. Keith Richardson and I once appeared on a radio programme for nearly an hour discussing energy prob-

lems. There was no great difference between us. There was concord between the Labour Party and myself, and Mr. Richardson added the expertise. Indeed, he adds expertise here, for he says:
The new National Coal Board plan is set up to beat this problem. More than a dozen marginal pits are being closed this year, some through sheer exhaustion and some because production costs far outweigh any possible price return. Instead of 270 pits there could be fewer than 200 by 1985. If no new investment were made, this natural rundown would bring the industry's capacity down from 135 million to 95 million tons a year.
I think that is the nub of the question. Without making the investment, whatever may happen to the productivity of the men, whatever may happen about recruitment, we should see a continual and steady rundown in the capacity of the coal industry to deliver the coal and the energy that we so desperately need.
Will the investment, as we are making it, produce its own reward? Capital and the machinery that it can produce are not enough. There is still the need to increase output per man using the machines. That problem will remain. We must find a solution to how the men can be persuaded to work the machines harder.
Lord Wilberforce, in his report, said that only by improving productivity could increases in real wages be obtained. There, surely, is the change of direction. Those surely are wise words. Only by increasing productivity can the mining industry reach out for much higher wages for the miners. That achievement will not be easy. It is a herculean task. But we must not give up. The difficulties must be faced.
This problem was referred to by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) in a similar debate in March. I have studied that debate, particularly the hon. Gentleman's speech. It was an absolutely first-class presentation of the problem. It is the only coal debate in recent years that I have not attended, and I am sorry that I did not. The hon. Member made a sound speech, not trying to fuel the fires of dispute but trying to show that there were ways out of the problem. He catalogued those pits in which the management and men had managed to overcome the problems and to keep open what would otherwise be uneconomic pits.
Much more recruitment is needed to maintain this new direction. As the Coal


Board has said, an average of 20,000 young men a year should come into the pits who see a future in health and safety as well as a fair wage. The board has not been slow in presenting its case. It has said:
With competitive wage levels and vigorous recruitment, the industry's manpower needs can be met.
Miners today have to be technically qualified. It is no longer a pick-and-shovel affair. I need not tell the Minister that, with all his experience. But other industries, such as the electrical industries and engineering, can offer these men competitive wages. The coal industry must be competitive bearing in mind, in particular, its disadvantages of danger and working underground.
Two shadows unfortunately lie across the industry as it looks ahead to a bright new future—the strikes of 1972 and earlier this year. Some consider coal supplies unreliable. The British Steel Corporation wants coking coal. In a document about research into the steel industry which I received this week, the Corporation said that it was concerned at
… the vulnerability of the Corporation when coking coal supplies are interrupted.
Its solution would be to turn to oil or North Sea gas.
The NCB has embarked on a much bigger research programme. Some years ago I was astonished to hear from the research director of the NCB how small his budget was. I have long experience of the thriving chemical industry, where large amounts are spent on research so as to expand and compete. I am glad that the Coal Board has decided to embark on a research programme costing £80 million, and spread over five years. It is a small programme when we consider what it seeks to do. That programme could be the key to the target figures of 150 million tons. It could even open Pandora's box and show the way to an entirely new page in the history of this great industry.
The research programme is aiming in three directions. First, it is meant to pursue the development of automatic systems to bring greater efficiency and safety in the pits. Second, there is the development of remote control and ultimately the fully-automatic control of established working methods under-

ground. The vista here is terrfic. Third —this is more simple but most important —it aims at producing better facilities for moving men and materials faster. We all know how long it takes to get men and materials to a coal face and how long it takes to get the coal back to the surface.
Does the Minister think that still further thought might be given to injecting more money into the industry? If we were to seek to achieve those three aims quickly and think in terms of investment in the coal industry as people think of investment in the North Sea, I wonder what could be the target for coal.
I was told the other day by a representative of Esso that building one rig for North Sea work costs £73 million. We need 90 rigs. The figures for the North Sea are colossal. We are in macroeconomics. We sit on enormous, valuable resources of coal, and I wonder whether we think big enough about them. If we thought big enough we would find a new approach in the coal industry. The new coalfield at Selby is vast. By itself it exceeds in energy terms the value of all the oil found so far in the North Sea. The potential of coal exceeds the potential of North Sea oil.
Can the Minister tell me what progress is being made at Selby? How quickly are we proceeding? When do we start? When will the first coal be on stream? If the Minister cannot tell me now perhaps he will let me know on another occasion, so that we may know more about this exciting prospect and be sure that the National Coal Board and the Government are not dragging their feet.
I want to put forward some statistics, to put the problem into context, covering the generation 1947–74. In 1947 there were 958 collieries. Today there are 259. In 1947 coal output in Great Britain was 184 million tons. Today it is 120 million tons, or thereabout. However, output per manshift in 1947 was 21·5 hundredweight per man while this year it is 42·3 hundredweight. It has been above 45 hundredweight. We had hoped for more. I remember Lord Robens talking about a figure of 50 hundredweight per man. But at least it has doubled.
But there is another problem, which has gone the wrong way—absenteeism. In 1947, when the wages were £6 and a few shillings a week, absenteeism was 12·4


per cent. Today, it is 17·6 per cent. One of our problems in this exciting industry today is that men are working four days a week.
But in 1947 the number of fatal accidents was 432, and every year for several years after nationalisation the figure was over the 400 mark. I am proud to say that in 1974 the figure is down to 60—still too high but a great improvement and a great achievement on those early years.
There has been a revolution in our coal industry in a generation. Productivity has been doubled, absenteeism has increased, but mining has been made seven times safer. We should not have a coal debate without making that observation.
In the years when the industry was being run down, in the 1960s and early 1970s—mainly in the 1960s—a coal debate in this House was a packed occasion. It was on occasion of protest by the miners' lobby, by the miners' Members of Parliament—protest at what was being done to their industry. It was a protest against closures and coal being phased out when it was still needed. Oil was king by popular consent, not coal. Those of us who wanted to stop that trend—I was one—were thought to be old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy, sentimental and unreal.
As we complained in this House, the miners went on digging coal. They went on increasing their productivity at 4 per cent. a year every year through all those years of contraction. When there was a shadow over the industry's future, the miners struggled to prove themselves right in the economic terms we were then demanding. They did not strike.
It is unbelievable, in the context of the way we see the miners today, that in the days when they were under pressure they produced the coal, increased productivity and did not strike. They used to complain. They used to lobby us here, and rightly so. They used to come in deputations to see their Members and try to get even more Members who did not know about the industry to take an interest in it. They never lacked spokesmen in this House.
There has been a turning point in the industry, and I think there should be a turning point in the way we regard it.

We should start calling on the miners as they used to call on us when they wanted something out of us. The boot is on the other foot. We want something out of them now.
When I say, "call", I do not mean a politician's call. I mean to pay a visit. We should go and see the miners. I am sure they would welcome us. There is no difficulty about that. And I do not mean only those of us who know about mining. The whole House should find time to visit mines, talk to the miners on their own ground—underground—and see their problems. We should see the machinery, the investment, the way in which the men work the machines, and we should realise their difficulties and what they attitude is. I am speaking not naively but confidently when I say that we shall not be dismayed by what we see.
Let me tell the House a story. Many years ago I went down a pit in my constituency. The pit, which was a deep one, has since been closed. The seam was low, and as we crouched and watched the coal coming back on the conveyor belt in great lumps as large as the Dispatch Box, I was encouraged to see written across one lump of coal, "Vote Tory". It was, of course, a joke, but that is the kind of spirit that one finds in the pits today.
I believe that we as Members of Parliament could make a contribution as we exhort and demand greater work from our nationalised industry, as we ask for greater productivity and five days' work a week, and as we ask for a realistic attitude towards the enormous possibilities that exist for us in the coal industry. We should get out and say those things, and I believe that that would produce its own reward.
The NCB has an opportunity to help Britain out of its difficulties, to put us on the map again and to put us ahead of our competitors. Coal does not exist in Europe to any extent. We have an enormous chance to forge ahead because of our coal and North Sea oil. The NCB has seized its opportunities. Its investment plans are sound and real. I think that the NCB may need to spend a bit more on research, but now it is up to the miners to play their part and to work the new machinery for all it is worth. If they want more tools, let us provide them. If they want more pay,


they must earn it and help to find a way of doing so that will help themselves and the country at the same time.

7.47 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) on being successful in getting a Consolidated Fund debate, but I congratulate him even more on his speech because I thought that he made a contribution not only to the quality and standard of the House but to the nation as a whole. Indeed, I think the hon. Gentleman got it right when he said towards the end of his speech that if we can produce the coal the nation needs, that will be a contribution to the fight back to economic stability.
If I may add a personal note, it is now ten minutes to eight and I do not think that this is the first time on which the hon. Gentleman and I have spoken in this House at this hour of the morning. He recalled that in days gone by—which no one would like to live over again—we sometimes kept the Consolidated Fund debate to ourselves, possibly much to the irritation of Mr. Speaker and perhaps hon. Members, too. Nevertheless, because of the great concern that we have for the coal industry we felt that it was our duty to do that, and on many occasions at 8 a.m. these benches were filled with hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman is right when he claims that he has always strongly advocated that the coal industry should not contract.
I shall try to respond to the many points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I must say at the outset—and I am sure he will agree—that it is not necessary for the Government to apologise for what they have done for the coal industry during the past nine months. One of the first acts of the Government in March was to bring the mining unions together. Then we brought in the National Coal Board and, with the Government, there was a tripartite examination of coal production for the future. This resulted in the interim report in June and the final report in November. The hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, drawn very heavily from those two reports.
The interim report backed the National Coal Board's plans for investing £600 million over the next 10 years, in addition to the normal annual expenditure of between £70 million and £80 million. The Government have pledged that the National Coal Board's investment programme— this was particularly emphasised in the interim report—would not be at the mercy of short-term fluctuations in the price of competing fuels.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the exciting exploitation of the new Selby coalfield, saying that it should be exploited as rapidly as possible subject, of course, to the normal planning procedures. I endorse everything that he said about that. I went to Selby in the course of the general administration of my Department. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this coalfield has occupied a great deal of my thought. It offers one of the most exciting prospects for energy that this country has had for a long time. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard me when I spoke on television after visiting the area. I described it as a miniature North Sea oil find and said that to some extent it is more important than the North Sea from the point of view of the economy and our national wealth.
In the Selby area we shall introduce all the new and exciting aspects of mining automation which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We shall not sink shafts. We shall have drift mines, and this will save the time involved in sinking shafts. The coalfield is next to a railway, which is of enormous importance because it will be possible to take the coal by conveyor belt to a central point of transportation.
There is also a great advantage to the local population. Mining being an extractive industry, pits close when coal no longer exists. There is already an established manpower in the surrounding area, and that manpower is sure of continued employment. In fact, some of the best miners in Britain reside in and around that area. We are therefore entitled to be reasonably optimistic about manpower.
Planning procedures are involved here. We are seized with the importance of Selby and we shall certainly try to expedite as much as possible, subject to the planning procedures, the opening up and


the bringing into production of the Selby field. I think that the people in the area are beginning to appreciate that they hold in their hands a prospect which could bring enormous riches and which will greatly enhance the general economic well-being of the nation.
It was correct of the hon. Member to draw the analogy between Selby and the North Sea. We hear a great deal of the exploration and drilling in the North Sea, but there is far more boring going on in the whole of Britain today for coal than is ever likely to take place in the North Sea. You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in your country of residence, Wales, we are searching for new coal resources.
The hon. Member referred to the past philosophy of contraction in the mining industry. There was no enthusiasm then to search for coal. How could there be when the industry and the men working in it were told that they had no future? Now, however, as the hon. Member pointed out, we are entering upon a new era and we are fortunate to have an island which is built on coal—a circumstance that France and other countries would dearly love to have in common with us. The search for new resources therefore is of great importance.
Reports are now coming into my office telling of possible exciting new finds of coal in various parts of Britain. That means a continuity of employment for miners and, at a time of energy crisis and shortage, wealth for the nation. If we are to get the manpower we must drive home to the miners that they now have a future.
The hon. Member referred to productivity. I think he gave the figure of 42·3 hundredweights per man shift. It is even better than that. To some extent it confirms the hon. Gentleman's analysis that productivity in the mining industry is picking up. The hon. Gentleman gave the figure of 28·9 hundredweights per man shift in 1960–61. In 1973–74, a strike year, it was 42·3, and so far in 1974–75, it was 41·9 in April, 43·8 in June, and then it slipped a little to 42·6 in August. The latest figure, for October, is 46·7.
The hon. Gentleman was right to express concern about whether we shall reach the target of 120 million tons in the year to April. He described the industry's

task in meeting that target as herculean. I do not dispute that description. But it would be a great mistake to suggest that the miners cannot achieve the target. When my right hon. Friend and I met the National Executive of the NUM last month after the productivity agreement had been rejected, we received a unanimous assurance that the miners would meet the target and not let us down. A week or a fortnight later the executive unanimously passed a resolution that it would do everything it could to meet the target, that its members, as miners' leaders, would go into the coalfields and try to persuade and influence the miners, explaining to them the reasons why the country needed the coal telling them that they had made a promise on their behalf that they would try to meet the target.
There will be brave attempts to meet the target. Our message to the miners should be that the country needs that coal, that we have faith that they will respond, and that we look forward anxiously to their meeting the target. I prefer that approach to the doom-and-gloom philosophy of telling the miners, "You will never make it." The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it will not be the first time the miners have responded to calls by the nation and have even surprised the nation.
The hon. Gentleman and I have been in difficult positions in the past. To some extent it may be embarrassing to us that we now wear the mantle of prophets, and I do not think that it suits us. We warned in the House what would happen if there had to be a massive contraction of the industry. But we must be philosophical and say with Shelley:
The past is death's
The future is thine own.
We must go forward and not look back. It is in the spirit of going forward that we must approach the tasks before us. We may get personal comfort from the fact that we tried to warn the nation what would happen. It is unfortunate that the nation did not listen, but we now have the duty of trying to make sure that we do not make the same errors.
I particularly wish to mention the subject of absenteeism, about which the hon. Gentleman questioned me. Absenteeism is significantly lower this year than last


year. This year's figure so far is 15·2 per cent. compared with the figure of 16·7 per cent. for the same period in 1973. The hon. Gentleman knows how one can play around with these figures. We talk of voluntary and involuntary absenteeism. The voluntary absenteeism figure has been between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. over recent years. The bulk of absenteeism is due to sickness and injury in the coal industry.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the question of the massive new investment that is required in the industry. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a matter of great importance, and although he stressed the automated section of the industry in relation to research and development, he will forgive me if I refer to another aspect. The hon. Gentleman will have read the final report of the coal examination. I was chairman of the working party on research and development. We were very quickly satisfied that sufficient investment would be forthcoming to make the industry more automated and mechanised. Those matters have been put in train.
Although the hon. Gentleman said he would like to see more capital invested in research and development, the matter is not covered only from that point of view. I took the working party to the United States, where we saw new, exciting pilot plants and experiments. Millions of dollars are being spent to discover new uses for coal. I was thrilled and excited, and I realised how fortunate we are in Britain as regards fuel. This bears out what the hon. Gentleman said about nuclear power, gas, oil and coal, the four fuels. There are energy problems in the United States. The Americans are spending millions of dollars on coal research and development because they have learned from past errors that to meet their energy requirements they will have to put their coal to new uses. The experiments we saw related to natural gas, the making of oil from coal, the extraction of petrol from coal, the creation of materials for the petrochemical industry, the making of carbon fibres and metallurgical coke from coal.
When we looked at these techniques, we realised that many of them were not indigenous to America but that they originated in Britain. I am sure that

the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I say that the National Coal Board deserves our praise for its efforts at Stoke Orchard, performed on a shoestring when the industry was confronted with these massive contractions. Since the hon. Gentleman is interested in research and development, I hope that he will take an opportunity to pay a visit to Stoke Orchard. Some of the people working there are among the most highly skilled in the country, and I am sure that they would appreciate his visit.
In the final report of the examination we outline three aspects of research and development, all of which have great advantages. They are the liquefaction of coal, pyrolysis, and fluidised bed combustion, the latter having very special advantages. Coals are different all over the world. One of the difficulties of the Americans is that their coal has a very high sulphur content, whereas ours has a very low sulphur content. Generally speaking, European coal has a high sulphur content. For us, therefore, technologically speaking, fluidised combustion is a tremendous breakthrough, and it can be seen from the final report that we have come out firmly in favour of research and development on it.
I have tried as best as I can to deal with the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. If he feels that I have not given some of the statistical information for which he asked, I am sure that he will write to me about it. I am grateful to him for inaugurating this debate, because it has given me an opportunity to talk about some of the matters that I have wanted to discuss for some considerable time.

Orders of the Day — DISCHARGED PRISONERS (AID)

8.12 a.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The head of expenditure which we are debating now, aid to prisoners on discharge, is an important increase. The amount by which the expenditure is being increased is substantial. We are increasing the amount going to prisoners on discharge by almost £200,000, and that is a 50 per cent. increase. In the main, this is due to increasing the discharge grants themselves from £4 to £6·50, which is


welcome. In addition, there is the supplementary £5·50 for homeless prisoners.
An increase of this size naturally raises the question of the policy behind it. There is little doubt that we enter here a critical area. We spend almost £90 million a year on our prison service. Our declared aim is to retrain men so that they can play a useful part in society. That policy depends upon what happens inside prison, but just as important is what happens on release.
It would be self-defeating if, having at enormous expense modernised our prisoners, provided training, restored or perhaps established a work habit in the prisoner himself, all this effort suddenly ended once the prison gates opened and the man was released. It would be bad for the prisoner and for the country. Not only would we have wasted our money— and it is worth reminding ourselves that it now costs £30 a week to keep a prisoner in prison—but it would mean in all probability that the nation would suffer fresh loss in the form of new crimes being committed.
When we consider the figures we find that they are not encouraging. All too often the released prisoner who has undergone expensive training as well as detention swiftly returns to prison. That applies particularly to the young prisoner, the group which is now causing the most concern not only to the Home Office but to magistrates, the courts and the police. The position is alarming. Over 70 per cent. of prisoners under the age of 21 are reconvicted. That is bad enough, but half those reconvictions take place within six months of release. Those are terrifying figures which give us some idea of the problem that the Prison Department and the country must face. They also give us a yardstick by which to measure the expenditure which we are debating.
All too often discharge is but a temporary break from prison. All too often within a matter of months the man is back inside. Once more the cycle will start. The sentence is served and the man is discharged. A fresh crime or crimes are committed and the man returns to prison. Clearly, the man is one of the losers but the public are also losers. The public suffer from the fresh crime which is committed. They pay in taxes and rates for the prisoner's detention, for his trial and for his detection.
I have no complaint if the money we are voting gives us some hope of breaking the cycle. It is much in the public's interest that we break it. I should like to hear that the money is being spent to good effect. We are now spending almost £600,000. The discharge grant is regarded as basically bridging support. The aim is to help meet the immediate needs of the ex-prisoner, particularly the homeless prisoner. He is paid in total a grant of £12.
I assume that it is common ground that one of the most serious problems with which we must deal is that of the homeless young criminal. He not only has no settled address but he probably had no steady job before entering prison. He therefore has nothing to which to return. He is discharged with £12 in his pocket. What happens then? His immediate problem will be to find accommodation. Everyone knows that the supply of furnished accommodation in our cities—for example, London—is critically low. Many hundreds of people with jobs and references find it difficult enough to find rooms. How much more difficult must the problem be for a man without references, for the man who has no job to which he can return.
Will the Minister tell the House what success the prisoner on discharge has in establishing himself or herself in new accommodation? What do her follow-up surveys show? What proportion of discharged prisoners experience immediate difficulties in finding the most basic need —namely, a room for the night or for the week? It is a matter of common consent that little money is spent in Britain or in other countries on criminal research and upon follow-up surveys. I think it was the United States Commission on Crime which remarked that there were few areas in which so much money was spent with so little trouble being taken to see whether it was achieving what it was being spent on and with such little knowledge of what it was being spent on. Can the Minister tell us, therefore, what steps are taken to check on this very crucial area, in the immediate post-release stage, to ensure that the money that we are voting is being effectively put to use? What are the difficulties and problems that the discharged prisoner immediately faces, and in what order do those problems arise?
in addition, on a practical point, what aid is given to the discharged prisoner to find accommodation? Where can he go for advice? If there are centres to which he can go, how is he informed of these at the time of his discharge?
The point I am making is that we are increasing the discharge grant, which will cost us almost £200,000 more, but such expenditure will be of little use unless the accommodation for which, basically, we have this grant in mind can be found. The question must arise whether we are wasting our money in this respect.
When in Opposition, the right hon. Lady the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mrs. Williams), as Shadow Home Secretary, made a number of points about this question. She asked whether the then Government were satisfied with the number of hostel places available. She said that, while the number of hostel places had increased slightly, the number of places in Rowton Houses and their equivalents had dropped dramatically over the last few years. What is the present situation in that regard?
I have one further question on this point. It concerns the current earnings of prisoners. We provide a £12 discharge grant for every prisoner, or certainly every prisoner who is homeless. But what are the current rates of pay in prison? What opportunity to save do prisoners have? With what amount of savings can a prisoner expect to leave prison?
The right hon. Lady the Member for Hertford and Stevenage, again when Shadow Home Secretary, took up a point with the Home Office which had been raised on a number of occasions previously and which has great relevance to the problems of the discharged prisoner. That was the problem of the national insurance card. It was the right hon. Lady's view that the absence of the national insurance stamp stood in the way of many men getting employment and drove them back to crime. If the right hon. Lady was right in that view, it must follow therefrom that we shall be substantially wasting our money by increasing the discharge grant alone. The logic of the right hon. Lady's remark and of her case would be that one could increase the discharge grant to almost

any level one liked, but unless the national insurance card was stamped the same difficulty would stand in the way of the discharged prisoner.
Therefore, bearing in mind the attitude that was taken deliberately and sensitively by the then Opposition, we are entitled to know what the Government's view is at present, and what progress they are making in implementing this policy.
One of the most depressing features of the discharged prisoners picture is how many go back, and how many swiftly go back, to prison. This affects not only young prisoners but those of the kind found at prisons like Pentonville, men who have spent many years in prison, mainly serving short sentences, some perhaps with severe drink problems. It is a vicious circle of minor offence, sentence, sentence served and perhaps fulfilling the function of drying out that prisoner, although it is not the job of the prison system to do that. The prisoner is then discharged and is back on the street, and this goes round year after year in a vicious circle.
Both with that group and with the younger group of prisoners, the need is for some kind of supervision and guidance. It is not enough simply to release a prisoner on to the streets and leave it at that. Only one service can provide that supervision and guidance, the probation service. Only in the last few years has the probation service been given the priority it deserves. From 1970 it was expanded quickly. It is essential that that expansion should continue. In aftercare nothing is more important than that the probation service should be given the highest priority. It would be disastrous if, in the examination of public expenditure which is going on, reductions were made in this small service. The probation service is not a strong pressure group. It has no strong industrial power, but the Minister would agree that it is operating a valuable service in the present system, particularly in the aftercare task. What are the Government's plans in probation? What targets has the Minister in mind? For those plans, targets are vital for the future of the discharged prisoner.
I have asked a number of questions in a constructive way. Much of the pressure for an increase in the discharge


grants has come from this side of the House, and, clearly, we support the increased discharge grant. Our concern and pressure has been the result, in part of a campaign by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of the Offender—NACRO—and I pay tribute to its campaign. Our concern is that the increase in expenditure that we are voting under this heading should be effective. We would be alarmed if, with the best will in the world, the Government were simply increasing the discharge grant while allowing the overall aim of policy to be defeated for other reasons.
The reconviction rate causes serious and grave alarm. Our efforts should not end when the prison gates open. Above all, we must ensure that our post-release efforts are not only well-intentioned but effective.

8.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matters raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I am sure that we could have a long discussion far into tonight on the large range of subjects which he has mentioned. I shall try to touch on each of the matters he raised.
The problems of penal policy are hard to solve, and successive Home Secretaries and Home Office Ministers have tried to consider them with an open mind and to find solutions. They constantly review the situation to see what can best be done. One of the great problems is what happens to a prisoner on release. Although I am primarily concerned with the prisons, I appreciate that the story of crime concerns what happens before prison, in prison and after prison. All those considerations are interrelated.
The prevention of crime is the most important consideration. It is not an easy matter. I am considerably worried about the increase in crime among young people and the rate of reconviction among them. We are making constant efforts to find a way to break this cycle of crime.
May I give a breakdown of the estimates? The revised provision of £579,000 for 1974–75 indicates an increase. It breaks down into three parts: first, the provision of fares for prisoners on dis-

charge—every prisoner's fare is paid to wherever he is going to live; secondly, discharge grants and subsistence allowances; and, thirdly, discharge clothing. Fares have increased recently and therefore the provision for them has increased. Discharge grants have also been increased. The hon. Gentleman quoted the discharge grant for homeless men as £12. In fact, it was raised in October to £13.
We try to keep the discharge grant parallel, as far as is possible, with the rates of supplementary benefit. That was the original intention when it was introduced on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. It was intended that it should be an immediate amount of cash available to a prisoner in that important first week after release. Delay could occur in the payment of supplementary benefit, whereas this is money in his pocket.
The rates of supplementary benefit were adjusted in July and consequently the discharge grants were raised in October to £7·60 for the standard rate and £13 for the homeless man. I am glad to say that there are now arrangements to ensure that any future adjustments are made simultaneously. Plans are now going ahead to raise the discharge grant in April 1975 in view of expected changes in supplementary benefit.
Apart from these substantial improvements in the rate of grant, in the past 12 months eligibility has been extended to younger offenders and to those serving sentences of over 14 days, in place of the previous lower limit of three months.
Again, on the third section—discharge clothing—grants towards the cost of providing prisoners with the latest type of clothing have been increased. One of the obligations on governors of penal establishments is to ensure that inmates released from custody are suitably and adequately clothed. We estimate that of approximately 60,000 sentenced prisoners and young offenders likely to be received into custody in 1974–75, approximately 35,000—rather more than half—will receive grants on discharge.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties on release from prison, of which we are all conscious. Housing is a general problem for people other than those released from prison. There are homeless people, young couples, who are


desperately looking for accommodation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that accommodation is considered before a prisoner is released. Wherever possible, a prisoner is not released on to the street without the governor and the prison authorities knowing that he will have a roof over his head. Advice is available to prisoners before discharge from prison weltare officers and afterwards from the probation service. Hostels and lodgings are available, some run by voluntary organisations.
Fortunately, the majority of prisoners have somewhere to go. Only a small minority, who do not want accommodation arranged for them before they leave prison, just go out and take care of themselves as best they can. Most have some place to which to go—either of their own or with families or friends. For those released on licence it is virtually a condition of release that there should be prearranged accommodation.
After discharge, other types of help are available for the released prisoner. Excellent voluntary organisations, which are increasing in number, are doing valuable work helping former prisoners.
The hon. Gentleman asked about earnings in prison, to supplement any money that the prisoner might take out with him or have available when he leaves. I assure him that this problem is under active review at the Home Office. I know that Ministers often say this, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that this problem is under active review. Indeed, the TUC has expressed great interest in it.
The average wage is now over £50 for a man, and only half that for a woman. The average prison earnings are 60p a week. That low level is not satisfactory. If prisoners earned more, they could perhaps save enough to tide them over for a couple of weeks. Earnings schemes are being reviewed, and there is the other question of improvement in prison work. But a substantial improvement in prison earnings would cost much more than is now spent on discharge grants, especially if earnings were brought anywhere near the average wage.

Mr. Norman Fowler: No one is asking the hon. Lady to raise it from 60p to £50 a week, but what are the plans? Do the unions support an increase in prison earnings?

Dr. Summerskill: We intend to meet the TUC to discover their views and proposals. One cannot say what a prisoner should earn until one has assessed his productivity and hours of work, for instance, and this is what we intend to do. The average earnings are 60p a week, but in some cases they range between £1·25 and £1·50.
Another benefit for those ineligible for the discharge grant is the subsistence allowance, available for a day or two after the prisoner leaves until he can get to the social security office. Another vexed question is the national insurance card. One encouraging point is that the use of cards and stamps will cease next year under the new scheme. At present, an employer may question an unstamped card, but if the prisoner has a fresh new card, it is still questioned, even though students and other sections of the population have such cards.
Equally important is loss of benefit if contributions are not paid. This problem is more intractable, because prisoners' earnings are insufficient to enable them to pay the non-employed contribution. Nor are they employed persons within the meaning of the insurance regulations, so they fall between two stools. Their earnings are so small that there is a problem with regard to national insurance contributions, and this is another problem that we are trying to sort out. There are two obstacles, the first a legal one, in that a prisoner doing prison work is not employed under a contract of service as ordinary workers are. The second is that the amount of money that would be needed to enable prisoners to contribute in the normal way is not in the prisoners' pockets.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Do I understand that it is the aim of the Home Office to ensure that some scheme can be found whereby prisoners' cards are stamped while they are in prison, so that they may be eligible for benefit later?

Dr. Summerskill: This is something we are trying to sort out. To some extent it depends on the Department of Health and Social Security, which has its own rules and regulations, which would need to be altered. But from next April cards and stamps will be unnecessary— which to some extent will mitigate the problem.
Then we come to the problem of earnings, which we are investigating.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government realise that an increase in the manpower and womanpower of the probation service is desperately needed. They are doing everything possible, in current financial circumstances, to expand the service. I shall let the hon. Member have more details in writing.
Alcoholics in prison pose a serious problem. Many prison places are filled by those who should be in special treatment units. We need an increase in the number of detoxification centres. Here again I am trespassing upon Department of Health and Social Security territory. There is a constant liaison with that Department. Official talks are going on about how we can relieve the prison service of alcoholics who have committed criminal offences. Many of them do not want to be treated, or if they are treated they go out and undo the effects of the treatment. All these subjects are constantly under review as we search for solutions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising them.

Orders of the Day — RIVER MOLE (FLOODING)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), I remind him that he is on a narrow subject and that it will be necessary for him to keep to the housing subsidies Estimate for the Department of the Environment. I hope that he does not think that I am out to victimise him. I am trying to put him on the straight and narrow path before he begins his speech.

8.48 a.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice. I have had forewarning of the direction in which the straight and narrow path leads. I am sure that you will find that what I have to say can be contained within the rules of order.
I raise the question of the acquisition of housing sites in relation to flood alleviation of the River Mole. In my constituency we are faced with all the usual factors affecting the provision of housing sites. First, there is the decline

in the available number of houses to rent. A large contributory factor in this respect has been the Government's rent policy and the consequent drying up of the market. People simply will not come forward with houses to rent if they feel that they cannot at some stage dispossess the tenants.
We have also the difficulty of first-time purchasers who wish to buy their own property. The Conservative scheme for mortgages put out during the General Election would have been of great help in overcoming their difficulties. Thus, young couples are finding it difficult to get accommodation in the area. This is reflected in the increasing number of applicants on the Elmbridge Council list. We now have 1,291 applicants on it, and it increases by 38 a month. Over the last six months we have been housing an average of only 15 a month, which leaves a net increase on the housing list of 23 a month. This situation will mount up and we shall face an acute housing crisis, if we have not already reached it. The proportion of public housing to private housing is 1:6·5, whereas the national average is 1:4. The council owns 5,964 dwellings out of a total of 39,904 in the area.
Another very important factor is the great shortage of land for housing. A number of areas in the constituency exist where houses cannot be built because the land is liable to flooding. Until such time as the Mole Valley flood alleviation scheme takes place, we shall make no progress. As a result of the disastrous floods of 1968, such land has had to be put into cold storage, but I must make it clear that there is strong local opinion that too many houses have already been built on the flood plain and that to build more houses there would be asking for further trouble. This is not altogether accepted for every area by the authorities.
The Thames Conservancy feasibility report on the flood alleviation scheme, published in 1969, said that such flooding as occurred in 1968, when 2,506 acres were inundated, affecting 10,000 properties and doing damage costing £1·3 million, could happen only once in 200 years and probably a much longer period. But a flood potential more damaging, owing to the back-up of the Thames, has arisen a bare five years after the report was written.
The report also said:
The main flood wave of the Thames usually arrives at Hampton Court some 3 days after any peak on the Mole or Wey. The odds against their combining are so great that they can be ruled out of serious consideration.
On this occasion all three rivers—the Thames, the Mole and the Wey—flooded simultaneously, and this is the one thing which it was said could not happen. This was only five years after these words were written. This is the reason why we have difficulty in finding land for housing sites. In the recent floods this month, between 13th November and 25th November, the rain gauges at the Esher water pollution control works registered a total of 457 inches of rain over that period.
On 23 rd November red warnings were issued by the Thames Water Authority for the Thames, the Mole and the Ember at 4 o'clock in the morning. At 6 o'clock in the morning the Mole and the Ember started to break their banks, and at 8 o'clock hundreds of houses were affected by floods, and roads were inundated. To give an idea of the wide areas covered, some of the streets which were completely flooded and cut off were Summer Avenue, Summer Road, Gladstone Place in the East Molesey area; Ember Farm Way and Esher Avenue in Thames Ditton; and Alexandria Road, Thames Ditton Island. That is a wide area of my constituency. These are just some of the places of which I can speak from personal knowledge, having visited them during that time. I could not get down these roads without using waders, but there were many others affected which I did not know about at the time.
One can imagine that when such a sitution returns so quickly, people living in these areas are very apprehensive. They cannot see why this scheme, which was formulated in 1969, is so slow in getting off the mark. Of course, able-bodied householders face these problems with great cheerfulness, but when old people face the problem of having to evacuate the whole of the ground floor and move their furniture upstairs, they really face hardship.
My main emphasis, from the points of view both of hardship and of land for housing, is on the inordinate delay between 1968, when these major floods took place, and 1974, when apparently

no progress has been made. The original flood scheme as outlined by the Thames Conservancy was to cost £2 million in 1969. That sum has now increased, due to inflation and other reasons, to £6·4 million. People ask whether it is not possible to put into effect a modified scheme, but I do not think this is possible.
In the letter of 20th March from the Department of the Environment, giving the Department's overall approval, it was stated by the Minister:
I conclude the scheme is the smallest safely to be adopted.
This is true. If one takes a dividing line from the River Mole just above Esher, the scheme comprises above that point a large flood plain which used to be contained by earth embankments and below that point a widening of the channel right the way through the River Thames. I do not believe that there can be any half-measures on this. At the moment a discussion is in progress about exactly how the costs will be borne between the Surrey County Council and the Thames Water Authority. If these discussions are delaying the start of the work, I ask the Minister to intervene so that it is expedited as much as possible.
I know that the statutory processes in this kind of scheme are very lengthy— compulsory purchase, engineering planning and so on. But now the red tape must be cut out and work must be started.
The scheme was designed to cater for an event which the report said might not happen for 200 years or more. It has arisen once again in barely six years. The scheme was based on the fact that the Rivers Mole, Ember and Thames would never rise together. They did rise together, and created a situation potentially far more dangerous than that of 1968. It was touch and go.
The urgency of the scheme is now very great, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to set at rest the great anxiety and frustration and to ease the physical hardships that my constituents have suffered.

9.2 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) has spoken


from first-hand knowledge of the difficulties of his area and of the great need for this flood alleviation scheme.
The scheme is aimed primarily at the relief of flooding in an area of existing housing, and it is fair to say that it will not have a very significant effect on new housing sites in the area. The area of the scheme comes entirely within the Elmbridge district, and the district council is satisfied that none of the land in the area likely to flood is in any way blighted. People are buying land in the area and the authority is imposing a restriction on any housing in the parts liable to flood. Those houses must be built with a floor level at least 12in above the 1968 flood level, but this constraint will disappear once the relief scheme has been completed.
The scheme was prepared by the Thames Conservancy—now the Thames Water Authority—following the floods of 1968, when about 2,500 acres of land and 10,000 properties were affected. Our latest estimate of the cost is £5·5 million, and there is a discrepancy here between this figure and that given by the hon. Member, but I shall write to him and set out the basis for the Government's figure.
The authority has applied for a grant. We approved the project in principle when the estimate was £2 million and we have now nearly completed our examination on the basis of the greatly increased estimate. The scheme depends not only on the grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but on a contribution from the Surrey County Council. The capital allocations to water authorities for 1975-76 await decisions on public sector investment, but we have been able to give the authority a sufficiently firm assurance to enable it to plan for a start to be made before the end of the current financial year.

Mr. Mather: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Government were giving approval for a start at the end of this year?

Mr. Strang: That is not quite what I said. We have given an indication that the work will be able to start before the end of this financial year, but I will make this absolutely clear at the end of my speech.
The proposals have not been universally accepted locally. There were not only objections to the compulsory acquisition of the land and property needed for the scheme but more general objections on the ground that the character of the area would be changed. Even within the past few days my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from local interests asking him to refuse approval of the scheme. Inevitably in a scheme of this complexity there have been delays because of the need to consider all the objections and to meet them where possible by amending the proposals. The preparation of detailed plans has taken time, as has the examination of the public expenditure aspects at a time when cuts are being made.
But we are aware of the tremendous importance of the scheme. We are aware of the depth of feeling of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, which he has eloquently expressed today. I am hopeful that the figures for the financing of the scheme will shortly be resolved, and that the Thames Water Authority will soon be given approval to make a start on the work. We shall pay close attention to this and do all we can to get through the financial discussions which must take place and see that a start is made at the earliest possible date.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT CREDIT

9.7 a.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for raising a new subject at this hour, but I hope that the House will agree that in view of the amount of money involved in Class IV, 11 of the Supplementary Estimates the matter is worthy of close scrutiny.
In the preamble to the Supplementary Estimates the Chief Secretary to the Treasury states that:
where substantial overspending can be foreseen at an earlier date, Supplementary Estimates may be presented in December to anticipate part or all of the Spring requirements.
I emphasise the word "substantial".
I hope that I shall not be accused of being over-zealous in querying additional expenditure. The Supplementary Estimate in question increases the original Estimate by £208,464,000 from


£299,441,000, making a total of no less than £507,905,000.
Such is the encouragement given today to increasing exports that expenditure on exporting is virtually regarded as non-controversial, and the figures are seldom the subject of scrutiny or debate. However, I should like to be reassured by the Minister that our enthusiasm is not getting out of control and that prudence has not been thrown out of the window.
Perhaps this is the right moment for me to declare what might be regarded as an interest. I am a director of a small private company which has been responsible within the last 12 months for exports in excess of £500,000. My company has taken advantage of many of the facilities provided by the British Overseas Trade Board and by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Since my speech is of a probing nature I hope that hon. Members will not accuse me of any improper motive.
For the sake of emphasis I repeat the figures. We have previously agreed expenditure to the Export Credits Guarantee Department of £299,441,000. We are asked to add a further £208,464,000, making a combined total for the year of £507,905,000. Those sums are devoted to the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
I am very much obliged to the Minister for his presence here for this short debate. He was due to open an office of the ECGD in Croydon last week. Unfortunately, pressure of parliamentary duties prevented his attending. The people in Croydon very much regretted, but fully understood, his absence. In his absence the opening ceremony was undertaken by Mr. Robert Fell, who is the head of the ECGD but who is shortly to leave to become the chief executive of the Stock Exchange. As an exporter I feel it would be right to express the appreciation of many exporting firms to Mr. Fell for his outstanding work while head of the ECGD and to wish him well in his new career.
This is an unfortunate moment to leave a department when, on a Supplementary Vote, the original Estimate of £299,441,000 is almost doubled. With the exception of the health and social services vote the amount to be allocated to the ECGD is greater than any other amount

to have been discussed during the last 10 hours of debate on these Supplementary Estimates. It is a substantial amount, and we must look at it with great care.
Ignoring the amounts under £1,000,000, we are left with three sub-headings under this expenditure. Section B refers to payments under guarantees other than bank guarantees. The additional sum required in this case represents an increase of more than 100 per cent. of the original Vote. An extra £8,262,000 is required on top of the original figure of £8,166,990. If this is extra to bank guarantees, does it refer to accounts which have not been settled by overseas customers? If so, may we have a breakdown of the total figure of £16,428,990, industry by industry? Those figures would be helpful, although I appreciate that they may not be available to the Minister during the debate. What proportion of that figure covers bad debts? Is part of it covered by bad debts that are unlikely ever to be settled?
I do not know whether it is appropriate to raise on this part of the Vote the question of the premiums of the ECGD. This week, the Department has announced increases in the insurance premiums. If these are to cover this part of the Vote, I should like to ask whether the increases are sufficient to balance the books and whether in the Consolidated Fund next year this item is likely to disappear.
I turn next to Section C, which refers to the cost of refinancing fixed rates of export lending. This has increased from £314,999,980 to £449,999,980. That is an increase of no less than £135 million, or 43 per cent. of the original Vote. It is a staggering sum, considering that we are dealing with figures which were produced only recently. They were produced earlier this year, and the high prevailing rates of interest have not really changed in the interim period. Will the Minister explain why the original Estimate was so inaccurate and so wide of the mark?
Then I come to this other very large sum under C4, the amount of £85,874,000, which is a completely new line of expenditure. Apparently it is to be paid to the commercial banks to make up the difference between the amount of interest that they are charging their customers for exporting contracts and the current interest rates. This is another very large sum. It is a great deal of money.
If the difference between current interest rates and the rates at which the banks are lending to exporters is 5 per cent.— with current rates at about 13 per cent. it is reasonable to assume that money was made available to exporters at 8 per cent. —it would mean that the amount lent by the banks to exporters under this head was £1,717 million.
These figures strain credulity, even allowing for the fact that the total sum may refer to a longer period than the current financial year, which I understand is likely. Is the Minister saying that approximately this sum has been lent by the banks to exporters at substantially preferential rates of interest? If so, over what period of time is this commitment to be outstanding, and will the grants appear in the Consolidated Fund next year and the year after?
I quite understand that the Minister will not wish to anticipate anything that he is likely to say in the Second Reading of the Export Guarantees (Amendment) Bill, which we await. But, if I am correct in my understanding, until that Bill becomes law, the Export Credits Guarantee Department is not entitled to make grants of any sort and, therefore, in a sense we should be voting this £85,874,000 for an illegal purpose. If the Bill does not become law, I believe that that is the case. The ECGD is not entitled to use that money by way of grant.
If I am right, I should have thought it appropriate for a footnote to be made to the presentation of this class to point out to hon. Members that this amount is being voted for a purpose not yet approved by Parliament. I would have thought that that would have drawn to the attention of more hon. Members the fact that this expenditure requires careful consideration.
I shall not delay the House for much longer. In page 40 of the Supplementary Estimates it is stated:
These sums take into account interest due to ECGD on the refinanced portion of such lending and any net amounts due to ECGD are included in Extra Receipts Payable to the Consolidated Fund.
What is the point of that note unless some indication is given to the House of the approximate amount which will return to the Consolidated Fund? Will the Minister

give some indication either now or at a later date what that figure is likely to be?
Finally, I turn to a small matter which summarises my reasons for raising the issue of this expenditure. In page 39 the House will note that the international subscription to the Union d'Assureurs des Credits Internationaux has increased by a small sum. I understand that the association exists to get international interest rates for exporters on a similar level throughout the world. If the country is involved at the moment in subsidising interest rates to exporters by £449 million, as is indicated in C1, and by a further £85 million by way of grants as indicated in C4, is the Minister satisfied that the association is being successful in its efforts? It seems that the association has singularly failed if it is necessary for the House to vote such substantial sums to keep interest rates on a fairly even keel. I suggest that the interest rates being paid to exporters are far below the levels at which they should be.
I should like the Minister's assurance that he will urge the association to take action to bring interest rates up to a reasonable level, thus saving the taxpayer a great deal of money, of which, perhaps, we shall see the benefit in future Consolidated Funds.

9.24 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) for raising the subject of the ECGD and for going into such detail. The hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to say something about the activities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department which does not normally figure in our debates. It remains our firm claim that the facilities that the department makes available stand comparison with those available from any similar organisation in other major exporting countries.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points of detail, with which I shall deal in the course of my speech. The Supplementary Estimate for the department can best be considered in the light of the increasingly large scale of the department's operations. I believe that the following figures will illustrate that. Exports covered by the department rose by about 40 per cent. in the first


six months of this financial year compared with the same period last year. The department covered £3,080 million worth of business compared with £2,193 million in the first half of 1973–74. That represents about 36 per cent. of total British exports, compared to 35 per cent. for the previous year.
In particular, there was a big and very welcome rise in the ECGD's short-term business declared to the department which rose by over a third to £2,496 million. In addition, the department's buyer credit business, where it guarantees loans made to overseas buyers to purchase British capital goods, also increased significantly. In the first six months of this financial year buyer credit guarantees issued totalled £482 million compared with £122 million in the same period last year. Advances made under ECGD guarantees to banks in respect of export finance also rose. In the first six months of this financial year advances totalled £919 million—an increase of 32 per cent. So much for figures. They do, I think, amply illustrate both the very large sums which are involved and the significant amount of exports which the ECGD insures.
This increasing scale of operations is also demonstrated by the rise in the ECGD's total commitments. These stood at £7,811 million at the end of September 1974 compared with £5,992 million a year earlier.
There is, perhaps, sometimes a certain confusion between the ECGD's credit insurance operations and its refinancing operations. It may be useful, therefore, if I briefly distinguish between these, since not only are they functionally and operationally separate but the financial considerations involved are quite different.
Let me deal first with the credit insurance operations. The underlying concept here is quite simple. The ECGD receives premium from exporters from which it pays its administration costs, meets current claims and makes provision for future claims. The department, as part of its parliamentary obligations is expected to earn its keep. In other words, it is required to break even, taking one year with another, and to operate—over time —at no net cost to the Consolidated Fund.
There can be little doubt that the ECGD has, throughout the years, met this obligation. However, breaking even is becoming an increasingly difficult thing to do. Not only is the ECGD faced with increasing costs, the risks it accepts are increasing as both individual buyers overseas and whole markets are hit by inflation and general uncertainties. The department expects these increased risks to be reflected in the pattern and level of its claims payments. Let me take one example—claims paid on private buyer insolvency and default under the ECGD's section 1 commercial underwriting were fairly steady at about £8·6 million in both the financial years 1971–72 and 1972–73. In the financial year 1973– 74 they rose steeply to more than £16 million.
In addition, where long credit is involved, the ECGD will have commitments at risk for many years. And in a rapidly changing world, the premium originally charged by the department cannot fully reflect the deteriorating situation.
It is perhaps against this sobering background that the increases in the ECGD short-term premium rates announced this week should best be viewed. These will take effect from 1st April 1975. Let me stress four points. First, premium rates have not been increased since the war— indeed, they have been pretty steadily reduced. Second, whilst the increase of about 15 per cent. may sound very large, it is perhaps put into perspective when expressed in real terms. In other words, the average rate will go up from about 23p per £100, to about 26p per £100. This, for example, compares with a not untypical rate of about £1 per £100 in 1946—and this for a much more restricted form of insurance cover. Third ECGD rates are still amongst the very lowest available to exporters anywhere in the world. Fourth, the increased rates are part of a package which will provide exporters with a very much simpler system for premium calculation. This will involve a single rate for all their short-term exports, irrespective of destination or payment terms. We believe that exporters will very much welcome this system and will find it considerably easier and cheaper to administer.
However, why were increases necessary now? There are two main reasons: first,


expectations of a difficult period ahead in terms of increasing market and buyer claims; second, the fact that the ECGD's accounting system has recently been reviewed. Whilst it is still in a transitional period of a move from an annual cash flow basis to a more sophisticated— and, we believe, more realistic—basis involving provisions for future income and out-turn requirements, it is clear that short-term business has not been paying its way. Some increases were, therefore, essential both to reflect the present position and to provide for the future—and, perhaps, to illustrate the significance of short-term business to the ECGD's operations, I need only tell the hon. Member that of the £4,789 million business insured by the ECGD in the last financial year, £3,700 million was short-term business, that is, on less than six months' credit.
Let me stress that there is no question in the Supplementary Estimate of the ECGD asking for a Vote from public funds to pay its claims—in the sense of there being some short-fall between its premium income and its claims payments. In other words, even on the basis of the figures before us, the provision for outgoings on claims, and so on, is more than offset by the provision for incomings in terms of increased premiums and recoveries.
Far from being a loss maker, the ECGD is often accused of charging too high premiums and of building up massive balances. This, I think, illustrates one of the reasons why annual cash flow accounting is misleading. At the end of March 1974, the ECGD's Section 1 balance stood at about £111 million, but as against this its Section 1 liabilities stood at £4,922 million. In addition, much of the premium received by the ECGD in the last financial year is in respect of business which will remain on its books at risk for many years ahead. Balances are essential to the Department to ensure that it can keep its obligation to Parliament to break even.
The hon. Member raised the question of Section 2 premium rates business. The figure of £8 million extra and £16 million in total does not represent irrecoverable debts. Some may be recovered, some will not be. We have, for example, a debt agreement under which we shall be covering some of the Chilean debts, and

this has already been signed. We expect to make other recoveries from other countries where we are doing Section 2 business.
Everything that I have said so far relates to the department's credit insurance operations. Let me turn now to the question of refinancing. It has been the policy of successive administrations to ensure that, in general terms, British exporters are not placed at a disadvantage with their overseas competitors as regards export credit and export finance. Export finance in this country has traditionally been supplied by the clearing banks. The ECGD has facilitated the provision of such finance by its guarantees to banks and its support of buyer credit operations.
Most major exporting countries operate a system of some kind to provide fixed rate finance for their exporters. In recent years, these export rates have not kept pace with other interest rates. Unless our exporters were to be placed at a significant disadvantage, our rates had to be kept broadly in line with the rates of others. This is not, of course, a cost-free exercise and neither would it have been reasonable to expect the commercial banks to provide fixed rate lending for exports at rates well below commercial market rates.
It is against this kind of background that the refinancing arrangements were worked out in 1972 between the then Government and the banks. Details of the arrangements were, of course, published.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade noted in reply to a Written Question on 21st November, the contingent liability to the banks which has arisen under these refinancing arrangements accumulated as a result of a gap in the powers of the ECGD. Legislation to fill this gap received its first reading on 2nd December and it would, I think, be wrong to anticipate the opportunity for debate which this Bill will present on Second Reading.
A revised refinancing arrangement has been agreed with the banks which will ensure that finance at interest rates fixed by the Government in the light of the rates available from our major overseas competitors will continue to be available. Again, I believe it would be wrong to anticipate debate on this. The provision


of £86 million in the winter Supplementaries represents the contingent liability to the banks.
These Supplementary Estimates are the authority to make this payment to the banks and the new powers embodied in the Bill will prevent the situation occurring again. It is a payment for purposes approved by Parliament.
The winter Supplementaries also provide for additional refinancing loans of £135 million. This arises from the fact that it is extremely difficult to forecast future levels of refinancing. There are a number of reasons for this. Exactly how much the ECGD will be called on to refinance depends, first, on the level of exports sold on two years' credit or more, secondly, on the size of the banks' current account balances—the threshold beyond which exports, and shipbuilding, can be refinanced is 18 per cent. of the average level of these balances over the previous 12 months—and, finally, on the timing of shipments of the exports and thus on when the banks actually provide the finance under the ECGD's guarantees. The earlier estimate was the best forecast of departments and the banks, but it has not proved to be adequate.
The provisions for both the grants and the loans cannot, of course, be financed from the ECGD's credit insurance operations. They are in a direct sense the cost of operating the refinancing arrangement necessary to ensure that adequate finance is available for our exports and that British exporters are able to offer competitive rates.
These figures serve to illustrate the significance of the cost of providing export credit. But we must bear in mind that international competition for exports can scarcely have been fiercer than it is now and the responsibilities and importance of export credit institutions have never been greater.
For this reason the United Kingdom through ECGD, is very actively trying to work out arrangements with the export insurance and export finance institutions and agencies in the major trading countries to keep export financing competition reasonably balanced, to harmonise export credit rates and to set out limits within which competition on terms might best take place. These negotiations do not

take place only in the organisation which the hon. Gentleman picked out as one to which we make a subscription, which has been increased. They take place in a wider context, among OECD countries an particular, at ad hoc international meetings. The negotiations, in effect, recognise that there are limits beyond which it is not worth Governments going in order to support exporters in their search for export business.
Lest this seems like the establishment of some kind of international cartel, let me stress that it will, in our view, have the great advantage of shifting much of the competition back to other sales attractions such as quality, basic price reliability, after-sales service and delivery dates. This can hardly be against the interest of overseas buyers. What we are striving for is not an exporting world without competition but one in which the competition is balanced between the various factors and not unduly concentrated on the single factor of credit. These efforts bore fruit recently when international agreement was secured to a minimum rate of 7½ per cent. for credit over five years.
I have confirmed that the ECGD is actively striving for co-operation with the credit insurers of other supplying countries, but this can never mask the fact that such countries are our competitors. The facilities available to their exporters—like the facilities available to our exporters— are part of a package. In other words, some individual facilities available to foreign exporters may be better or more generous than the ECGD gives—but the reverse is certainly true. For example, the percentage of cover given by the ECGD is often higher than that available from others, the waiting period during which claims are examined is usually shorter, and our premium rates are almost always lower.
On balance, I should have no hesitation in claiming that the package of cover available to British exporters stands comparison with that available from any country in the world. This is not to claim that ECGD is perfect or that its package of facilities could not be improved. It is always willing to consider ways in which its cover could be improved or adjusted to reflect changes in the world trading scene. Indeed, a number of such changes are currently under review. The ECGD tries, as I have stressed, to match


what other credit insurers are doing. This is, however, a general objective and not an infallible or invariable guide. Credit giving is not a cost-free process and for the Government, as for exporters, there are lengths to which it is simply not worth going in order to obtain export businesss.
The ECGD, like its opposite numbers in other countries, has a statutory, economic and social—as well as a common sense—obligation to ensure that its exporters remain competitive in terms of financial arrangements with exporters from other countries. Only in this way can our exports be maintained and increased, our essential imports paid for, and our ability maintained to play our full international rôle in aid and other fields.
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject and for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on it.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING SUBSIDIES

9.38 a.m.

Mr. Tim Renton(Mid-Sussex): In the Supplementary Estimates, under Class VII, Vote 1, Section A, we are asked to vote an additional £196 million for grants to local authorities, development corporations and housing associations for housing purposes. It is about the inadequacy of that very large additional vote to meet the housing needs and housing crisis in Britain that I wish to speak.
When I made my maiden speech some months ago, in replying an hon. Member from the Government Front Bench said that he wished that his constituency had the same problems as mine. I appreciate the validity of that comment. We are very lucky in Sussex. It is a fortunate part of the country. But, none the less, we have a very substantial housing problem in which the difficulties of the young childless couple, or of the boy or girl who leaves his or her family and comes to my area for the first time to get a job, or the increase in the number of homeless in the area contrast starkly with the general prosperity of the South East. It is the prosperity which makes the position of these people worse because, naturally, that prosperity leads to higher prices for houses and flats than is normal in the rest of the country.
The housing situation in the South-East has become so bad that a few weeks ago our local paper ran as its headline a quotation from a speech made by the noble Lord, the Earl of March, president of the Sussex Rural Community Council, who said:
Housing in Sussex is in a state of near disaster.
It is about the total lack of success by the Government in dealing with this housing crisis that I shall speak.
First, I should like to touch on housing associations. In the circular put out by the Department of the Environment in April this year, in paragraph 38 the Department stated:
The Secretaries of State believe that the voluntary housing movements has an important part to play in meeting housing needs in collaboration with local authorities.
I fully support that statement. It is by the use of the voluntary housing movement that charitable funds and the free giving by people of both their time and money can be channelled into the most important basic social need of all—the provision of housing.
Two new housing associations have come into being recently in my area to deal with a new problem of homeless-ness that did not exist some years ago. These new housing associations are floundering in a mass of red tape.
One of those housing associations, a registered charity and friendly society, has raised £14,500 in the last year and it is apparently eligible for money either directly from the State or from the local authority. It wrote to the Department of the Environment, which suggested that it contact the local authority.
The association received a welcome in principle from the housing department, but the planners said, "We have a head and a heart. Our heart is with you, but our head is against you." Therefore, after some months, the association is still in negotiation with the local authority and it has not obtained a specific go-ahead for its plans.
The association then wrote to the Housing Corporation, which was charged by the Department of the Environment with the specific duty of aiding housing associations. The advice from the Housing Corporation was that in general it did not exist to encourage the development of new housing associations. As I said, my


area is obviously not an area of severe housing stress, but these associations came into existence fairly recently to deal with the growing problem of the young and homeless.
The Housing Corporation said that under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1974 it was duty bound to establish a register of housing associations and that the Housing Association Registration Advisory Committee—a very long and complicated title—had not yet provided the necessary criteria for a voluntary housing movement.
The other new housing association in my constituency is a self-build housing association. Its members have become impatient waiting for council houses, they have been put off by the appalling cost of private houses, and therefore they have decided to try to acquire land to self-build houses themselves. They have received totally different answers from local authorities to the question whether land was available to them. Everyone tells them a different story. Some say that they think they will be able to have land, others say that they will not.
One of my constituents told me last night that they were told to register with the National Federation of Self-Build Housing Associations as an initial step. All that they have found out about that federation is that membership would cost an initial subscription of £50, and they do not wish to pay that money without knowing what they will get for it. So they too, are floundering.
These new housing associations are self-critical They admit that they are amateurish, that they do not know all the rules, but they say that they need a full-time expert to guide them through the complexities of the rules and regulations among the Department of the Environment, the local authority and the Housing Corporation so as to establish just what they are entitled to and how best to obtain it.
I would therefore suggest to the Minister that the HARAC should as soon as possible issue a list of guidelines and crieria for the housing associations to follow. The ordinary voluntary housing association will then know that, if it follows these guidelines, under the Government's auspices it will obtain some money with which to help meet the

community's housing needs. Those guidelines could also deal with the funding of the additional costs of welfare work, in which so many housing associations are involved, since many people on low incomes, especially in areas of housing need, bring their social problems as well to the associations.
We should also bear in mind the problems of the young couple moving perhaps to the South East, who would like to buy a house but cannot possibly afford the £10,000 or £12,000 that it would cost. That would mean finding a deposit of £1,000, and having another £1,000 in the bank for furniture. They would have to be on a joint salary of between £3,000 and £4,000. For such people, house prices today put the possibility of owning their own home out of their reach.
Surely for such people, the Government should consider introducing a standard of permanent mobile home which a young couple with £3,000 or £4,000 could afford. In these cases, the initial sum required would be only £700 or £800 and it is likely that their parents would help to meet that initial cost. If such mobile or prefabricated homes, to which additional rooms could be added, were within the price range of £3,000 to £4,000 in total, the young couple would be encouraged to save and be given the possibility of owning a home of their own, which at present would not otherwise be possible.
In a year in which housing starts, both by councils and by private industry, are not likely to exceed 260,000, which will mean the worst year since 1958, it seems sensible to encourage every sector of the industry concerned with providing housing —public or private, rented, furnished or unfurnished. Unfortunately, the Government's Rent Act of 1974 has tragically moved in exactly the opposite direction.
If the Minister does not believe me let me quote from the magazine Time Out, which is not notable for its Right-wing views. Writing about the 1974 Rent Act on 8th November the magazine starts with the words:
The 1974 Rent Act has had an apparently disastrous effect on the state of the market for furnished flats and rooms in London.
In my constituency there are many good, decent, landlords who have previously rented furnished accommodation


and who now feel that because of the security of tenure given to the tenant and the difficulty of getting undesirable tenants out they no longer wish to let accommodation. They do not feel that under the Rent Act, even if they are resident landlords, they are sufficiently protected. I am informed that if a landlord renews a tenancy to a tenant when the landlord is resident—if the tenancy is rolled over several times—a security of tenure will be established which it may be very difficult to remove. The general attitude is therefore to have nothing to do with the provision of furnished accommodation.
The Government should carry out a survey, perhaps using the Central Policy Review Staff, into the decline in furnished accommodation and the tragic rise in the number of homeless associated with its decline. Both of these trends have been accentuated, alas, by the 1974 Act.
In my constituency there is a good deal of short-life housing. Some is owned by local councils, concerned about future road-widening schemes or bypasses. They know that they will need possession of the property for these purposes in two to three years' time. Some of this housing is owned by developers who have permission to erect an office block but who, particularly in the current economic climate, are unlikely to build for many years.
Meanwhile, mainly because of the worry about giving security of tenure, this short-life housing is kept empty. It is not used for any purpose at all. I urge the Government to introduce a system of licences for such housing. These would be for a specific time and there would be no ongoing commitment to a further tenancy. I accept that this is only half a solution, but it provides a roof over the heads of people who might otherwise have none at all.
During the two to three years that people lived in such housing they would be able to work their way up the council list. I appreciate that this idea of licences with no ongoing security of tenure runs contrary to the political dogma of the Government, but it would help some people who are in a critical situation.
I conclude by quoting the words of Des Wilson, when he was Director of

Shelter, in 1968. The final paragraph of a memorandum he wrote then reads:
When we do comment on housing policies we comment on them from one point of view only—the point of view of the homeless. We try to reflect their wishes, their problems and their needs.
Surely the needs of those who are without a roof over their heads is more important than pursuit of political dogma about State ownership of rented property. This dogma neither the country nor the homeless can afford.

9.55 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on managing to make an extremely wide-ranging speech about housing within the narrow confines of this Estimate. I congratulate him, too, on attracting to the Chamber most of the members of the Committee dealing with the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill. Perhaps if one or two more come in, we can have our meeting here.
The hon. Gentleman's was a novel speech in some respects. It is unusual for a Conservative Member to quote Time Out and Des Wilson as authorities for his argument. Whether the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) would agree with the hon. Gentleman on one of the authorities he quoted is a matter for conjecture, and whether also the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) would agree with his plea for more housing subsidies, with which he acceptably opened his speech, I am not sure, either.
We accept that the availability of subsidies for local authority housing is a very important factor in the construction of such housing. We have managed to obtain from the Treasury the most massive increase in subsidy allocation. We recognise that it is still not enough, but it is enabling us to improve the level of council house starts way beyond what was achieved under the Conservative Government.
I agree that we face a grave housing situation. Since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are perhaps a little too fatigued to call us to order if we become too polemical, I shall not trawl over the record of the Conservative Party which has led us to the situation in which we so unhappily find ourselves.
The hon. Member spoke movingly about the problems of those who wish to organise housing associations. We are very anxious that the housing association movement should be given every incentive. That is why we took over the housing and planning Bill left behind by our predeccessors and transformed it into the Housing Bill which we introduced in the last Parliament, in the course of it making subsidy assistance to the housing associations even more generous than the Conservatives had intended. Current estimates of expenditure for grants and subsidies for the coming financial year for the voluntary housing movements are more than £216 million, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a considerable amount of aid.
This will not alleviate the other problems to which he referred. One of these is undobutedly planning considerations. I sympathise with those who wish to build but find themselves hampered by planning problems. As far as we are concerned, we hope that local authorities will streamline their methods because we want to ensure that the maximum number of houses is built in the shortest possible time. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government said yesterday, it is also true that planning considerations are very important to make sure that the right procedures are gone through and that the right protection is given.
The hon. Member referred to the beauties of the county, part of which he represents. It is very important that in his county, as in other places, including urban areas, we should reconcile the speedy building of the maximum number of houses with the preservation of amenity, and, of course, planning procedures are required for that.
The hon. Gentleman was a little irked about registration procedures introduced in the Housing Act 1974. Again, I accept that, for those wishing to set up housing associations, these could be bothersome. But as a Government who wish to encourage the voluntary housing movement in the way our predecessors did, we believe that it is very important that the voluntary housing movement should not only be entirely reputable but be seen to be entirely reputable. There is a small

minority of rotten apples in this barrel, and the registration procedures are intended to make sure that that barrel is purified. This is extremely important. We all know of housing associations which are not carrying out the social rôle which is the aim of the voluntary housing movement to which we in all quarters of the House are dedicated. I think that the irritations to which the hon. Gentleman's constituents have been put, about which I sympathise with them, are nevertheless a small price to pay to make sure that we have an entirely reputable voluntary housing movement.
On the question of publicising criteria, this is something with which we could perhaps help. I will certainly contact Lord Goodman to see whether the Housing Corporation can assist in this matter. In the cases of the particular associations which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, if he would like to give me details of individual problems, I will certainly be glad to look into these to see whether help can be given.
At the same time, it is necessary to make clear that it ought not to be too easy to set up a housing association. People with the best will in the world, anxious to assist in dealing with the very serious housing problems to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, can get themselves into great financial difficulty if they do not organise their endeavours in a satisfactory way. That is why the kind of guidelines and procedures which are entrenched in the legislation exist, even though those who wish to go full speed ahead may wonder whether they are sometimes necessary.
The hon. Gentleman made an appeal for helping first-time purchasers by means of mobile homes. He will, of course, have read the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delivered in Brighton on 30th October. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Department is looking urgently into all ways of providing speedy low-cost housing to assist those whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We are looking into a number of possibilities. I have received recently—I cannot make any commitment about them —most interesting suggestions about forms of extendable housing to which the hon. Gentleman referred as a possibility. We are looking into these, and


I assure him that we have ruled out no possibilities. We are very anxious to get lots of people housed quickly.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman in this regard that the desperate situation that we inherited is being alleviated somewhat. Although the private housing starts are still lamentable to a degree, it appears that we are likely to be turning the corner in private housing starts. The completions are more encouraging than they were. The completions are, to a large extent, based upon a better spirit in the industry because of the increased cash flow in the building societies and the increased number of mortgages being taken out. The Building Societies Association issued very interesting figures on this subject this week.
Also, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out yesterday, we have modest cause—no more than modest —for satisfaction in the increase in local authority housing starts which is very discernible since the present Government came into power and made it clear that we are very anxious indeed for a considerable increase in local authority starts.
The hon. Gentleman was a little contentious in what he said about the workings of the Rent Act. Although Time Out is, I am sure, an authority on many things, housing may not be a field in which it should receive the greatest attention. For all these strictures of Time Out and of the hon. Gentleman, too, on the outcome of the Rent Act, I would tell him that there are many people who believe that the Rent Act is not strong enough even so—including a constituent of mine who, despite the security of tenure given her, was thrown out of her flat a few days ago as a furnished tenant.
Protection is not always as great as it should be. The hon. Member is not accurate in talking about a decline in furnished accommodation. There has been an increase in furnished accommodation in recent years. We cannot say, as yet, what the effect of the Rent Act will be. It is very early indeed to leap to conclusions, but I can assure the hon. Member of one effect of the Act. Since he quoted an early memorandum by Mr. Des Wilson when he was in charge of Shelter, I shall give information that we now have, that since the Rent Act came into force the number of furnished tenants

going to Shelter for help because of security of tenure problems has declined quite dramatically, and I think that is a tribute to the legislation which the Government insisted on asking the House to approve earlier this year.
When the hon. Member refers to the dogma of this party about furnished tenure, I will not resile from that allegation. We have a dogma about it. We want to protect tenants and I am afraid that the hon. Member's plan, sincere though it is, for short-term licences is not one that we can accept. It is no good giving people houses if at the same time a cloud is put over the tenure of their home. The sheer misery of people who are not sure from day to day whether they will have a roof over their heads is far worse than the uncertainty of landlords whether they can get property back, though we have put a great many safeguards into the Rent Act and, indeed, safeguards for resident landlords to whom the hon. Member referred.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I have no wish to be contentious. We should all be careful in pretending that things are easier than they are in these matters. I have had deputations in my constituency about the effect of the Rent Act. Young single people, in particular, are being very hard hit by the decline in available property, with furnished landlords insisting only on overseas lets. I believe that we may well be facing a crisis. I wish that the Minister would not dismiss too easily the idea of licences. In London we are spending £3 million a year on bed and breakfast accommodation. I am not at all sure that we would not do better to look at other forms of short tenure so that the family can be together in a unit with the facilities of a home rather than being pushed into bed-and-breakfast accommodation like this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not turn this idea down too firmly.

Mr. Kaufman: I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who has represented one stress area in this House and who now represents an area where perhaps the stress is not so great but where there are considerable problems of another kind. But I do not want the House to be under any illusions. I cannot accept proposals for this kind of short-term tenancy. The


hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) repeatedly puts forward the notion of some kind of tenure called "shorthold", and I have repeatedly and, I am afraid, somewhat to his anger, had to turn it down.
The need for the kind of bed-and-breakfast accommodation to which the hon. Member refers is caused by home-lessness, which was to a very large extent brought about by the lack of security of tenure for furnished tenants. The local authority from Wandsworth, for example, can give the hon. Member a great many examples of that kind of thing. Our information is that the decline in rented accommodation has been halted, but we gave the assurance when the Bill was going through the House earlier this year that we would be examining the effects of the Rent Act and that it might be necessary for certain reasons to return to this subject later in the Parliament.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex for giving us this opportunity at this interesting time of day to examine these problems in detail. I assure him that the Government are dedicated to helping people to get homes of their own, whether as owner-occupiers or as tenants, and I assure the hon. Member also that we are under no illusions about the only effective way to get people better housed —and that is to build many more homes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That the Order of the House of 22nd November relating to the Quorum of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration be amended by leaving out the word 'Four' and inserting the word 'Three' instead thereof.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION

10.10 a.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I am singularly fortunate to have been selected for the Adjournment debate, which I had thought would probably take place 12 hours earlier.
The subject I have chosen is the state of nursery education. I am sorry to see that although nursery education is the responsibility of both the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security there is on the Government Front Bench only half of that authority.
The job of any Opposition party is to keep the Government up to their promises. Anyone who is concerned about education will have felt that the Labour Party in government has always had a high regard for education. In 1967 the Labour Government brought out an excellent pamphlet called "Children and their Primary Schools", which says:
the nursery school is not a substitute for a good home: its prime function … is to supplement the normal services which the home renders to its children and to make a link between the natural and indispensable fostering of the child in the home and social life of the world at large.
A few pages later it says, very sensibly:
Nursery education should throughout be an affair of co-operation between the nursery and home and it will only succeed to the full if it carries the parents into partnership. Support does not mean mild consent; it means the kind of active concern which can only come out of joint activity.
In its manifesto for the October General Election, under the heading "The Right to Education", the Labour Party, in the first sentence, said that:
The next Labour Government will:
End the 11-plus and other forms of selection for secondary education. Continue to give priority to nursery school and day care provision, full-time and part-time.
It is the job of an Opposition party to see that the Government keep to that.
The proportion of children between the ages of two and four in full-time and part-time nursery schools, in both the public and the private sector, is under 2 per cent. I realise that in the past few months, let alone the past few weeks or days, the Government have been cutting their commitments. They are saving thousands of million of pounds on defence and are saving a great deal on other things.
Politics is about priorities. What are the priorities in regard to nursery education? The Government are committed to providing by 1982 nursery education, in accordance with the Plowden Report, to all those children whose parents are desirous of it.
In 1972 the Conservatives pinpointed the Government's concern for nursery education, and the Labour Party supported them entirely. Their aim then, as stated in the White Paper, "Education: A Framework for Expansion" was that
within the next ten years nursery education should become available without charge, within the limits of demand estimated by Plowden, to those children of three and four whose parents wish them to benefit from it. Circular 8/60 will be withdrawn".
I do not have to tell the Minister of the enormous importance of nursery education. It is important to the schoolchildren, many of whom, if they receive some sort of education at the ages of two, three and four, can have deficiencies pointed out. The children who receive nursery education at an early age will not be in need of remedial education later on. The sooner the form of word blindness, deafness, or other disability that pre-Vents a child from being normal is discovered the greater the hope of a complete cure.
During the debate in May, 1974 the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) brought up the question of nursery education. The ministerial response by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Services was:
The background to the involvement of social services departments as against local education authorities, in all these activities is that the day-care services are at present—I stress at present—essential services provided for those families who are most in need and most heavily beset by all the many problems suffered by those who are the victims of poverty. I am talking about single-parent families, about mothers over-burdened by the struggle to bring up too many children on too few resources."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May 1974; Vol. 874, c. 1764.]
I am very pleased to see that in this Parliament we have a new champion of the one-parent family, the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman).
I should like to hear from the Minister of the extent to which one-parent families will be encouraged by providing facilities for their children to be sent to nursery

schools, day schools and day care centres. The Liberals would regard as a priority, first, the guarantee of significant expansion in the number of nursery places in a phased operation to reach a target of full provision for 1982. Secondly, they would like a rapid increase in the number of training places for nursery school teachers. We would like to see—I have no doubt that the Government share this desire— an improvement in the wages and conditions of nursery assistants and nurses who hold National Nursery Examination Board certificates. It is significant that these students are now so ill-paid that many of them, dedicated as they are, are leaving their vocation for jobs which will afford them a reasonably decent life. Some of them are still receiving £14 and £15 a week. They see a cleaner in the same hospital receiving £9 or £10 a week more.
Thirdly, we should like to see the transfer of full responsibility for nursery education to the Department of Education and Science, since the under-fives have generally not been well served by the Department of Health and Social Security, especially when the responsibility for the under-fives has been shared. I recognise that the Department of Health and Social Security must always be responsible for matters relating to health, but the educational requirements of this group merit the vesting of responsibility in one overall authority. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on that.
Finally, I should like to see greater encouragement of the local educational authorities to support the nursery groups in their locality. Opportunities exist in this field. I am thinking of child-minding training and the imaginative use of public libraries and of health centres.
In some parts of England there are peripatetic story tellers. There is no reason why, when a planning authority gives permission for a huge new supermarket site, it should not ask that included in it there should be a creche for children. Enough money is made by supermarket operators to allow them to put something back, and their business would probably get much better. If a mother can leave her two-, three-, four- or five-year old child in the care of a creche—a well-organised room with trained child minders or even nursery teachers—a great deal of good will result.
One hears of the appalling lack of facilities and the fact that there is nowhere that is already built where there can be nursery school classes. I should like the Minister to look at the possibility of health centres, which are already handsomely equipped and which are used only for a few hours every day. Another possibility is the public library. There are times of day when public libraries are hardly used, and these are the very times when one room might easily and profitably be used for the education of nursery school children.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Is there not also an opportunity and a need for creches to be provided at places of work to enable women to carry on their work knowing that their children are receiving the benefit of nursery education at the same time?

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was about to come to that. We have discussed it before. There is a great need for it, from the point of view of industry attracting women who might not otherwise be able to work. But in this debate I wanted, in the first instance, to pinpoint something of benefit to the children, although, if it helps mothers, in the long run it will also help the children.
I am greatly concerned about the aspect of child minding. There are an estimated 100,000 illegal child minders. When I say "illegal", I mean unqualified and unregistered women who take in children for money in order that their mothers may work or be rid of their responsibilities. I know that the Government are well aware of this. They are so well aware that they have made a grant of £11,000 in order that a report might be prepared.
It is very easy for a Government who are concerned about any specific matter to award a sum like £11,000 so that one man can spend two years preparing a report. I wish that the Government had spent that money on advertising and on showing the great dangers of allowing unregistered women to take children so that mothers can go to work. These are invariably the children of single-parent families, of unmarried mothers, and of immigrants who cannot afford to live unless their children are farmed out.
The immense damage which is done by these unregistered child minders should

be looked at carefully. The result is known as "the silent child". Such children suffer from language retardation caused, I suppose, by restricted opportunities of communication. In many cases, economic necessity has driven mothers to work. But when children are farmed out to unregistered child minders, it is the lack of love which causes very many problems which become a heavy burden on the remedial services afterwards. Children in the hands of ill-equipped, untrained and disinterested child minders do no more than obey instructions. They are told to sit down, to be quiet, to go there and "Don't do that." When these children arrive at primary school they are the problem children. They do not have the ability to grasp ideas or to be taught in a class. These children deserve the highest priority. The job of the nursery school is to support the parents' efforts in a good home; it is not a substitute for parental responsibility. What a nursery school should and can do is to forge a link between the natural life of the child at home and the community and social life of the world at large outside the home.
I realise that we are in a grave economic crisis. Indeed, had this debate taken place at 10 o'clock last night I would not have known how much more serious our position has become overnight. Nevertheless, I still ask the Minister to say how much money will be allocated not this year—we already have the figures for this year—but as ongoing money to nursery education. Can we utilise the services of our libraries, museums, health centres, churches and supermarkets? There are many similar places where mothers and toddlers congregate. There are many people in the community, in colleges, libraries and higher education for example. I can see no reason for creches not being provided in colleges of further education or schools as well as in factories. If there were creches in schools I am sure that many talented teachers would be wooed back into the profession.

10.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) for raising such an important educational matter as well as an important social


issue. He has made his case clearly and effectively.
The attitude of the Government and that of all parties towards this issue is not merely concerned with economic matters. We believe that this is an educational advance that is long overdue. There is no doubt from the evidence that some children, because of the lack of nursery-school facilities and pre-school education, have lost out by the time that they have reached the age of five. As Sir Alec Clegg said, they are born to fail because of the environment and background from which they come.
One of the ways in which we can provide equality of opportunity for these children is through pre-school education. That is why, despite the economic difficulties and the crisis through which we are passing, we not only gave priority in our manifesto and in the Gracious Speech to nursery education, but my right hon. Friend's statement, backed by resources, are indications of the great importance we give to this sector of education. It is the Government's view that all children can gain from nursery education. The House will recall that shortly after taking office my right hon. Friend outlined the Government's policy. He said:
The Government's aim is to make provision as soon as possible for nursery education for children of three and four years of age, mainly on a part-time basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 1077.]
That remains our aim. In pursuing it we attach a special urgency to meet the needs of children in areas of special social need—namely, those who are particularly disadvantaged.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the great advantage of identifying very early in life any handicaps which would prevent the child becoming what we would call a normal child. That is why even during our economic difficulties the nursery building programme for 1974–75 has been protected from cuts. That is why nursery education was assured of continuing priority.
I want to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The first phase of the special building programme has now begun. Resources for this year's starts and next year's starts were allocated to local education authorities, weighted in favour of those with relatively large numbers of disadvantaged

children. That allocation was made in 1973.
I am aware that local authorities are under heavy pressure and have had to look closely and critically at all their expenditure, not only for this year but for future years. In some areas the expected cost of expanding nursery provision has given rise to very great concern. Considerable publicity was given earlier this year to the possibility that some authorities might not want to carry out their full plans for nursery building. Indeed, we had applications from some authorities which asked if they could spend the allocation on another sector of the education service. My right hon. Friend was quite firm about this. If an authority was not willing to spend the allocation on nursery education we would allocate it to another authority that was willing to expand its nursery sector.
My Department wrote to all the new local education authorities in July to seek an assurance from them that they would be taking up their full nursery building allocation for 1974–75. At the same time, authorities were invited to bid for a share of any extra resources for projects to benefit children living in areas of social need. Despite economic difficulties, the overwhelming majority of authorities, I am pleased to say, have indicated that they intend to take up their allocation in full, but a few have still to settle their final plans. Additionally, 57 authorities asked for extra resources for projects to benefit children in deprived areas. We have now distributed for this purpose not only the resources released by the few authorities which found themselves unable to take up their full allocations, but also a further £4·3 million worth of resources to bring the total value of the allocations into line with 1974 prices.
The Government welcome this evidence of the importance which local education authorities attach to nursery education and of the priority which they give to making provision for disadvantaged children.
Although the present year marks the beginning of the special building programme for the expansion of nursery education, there are substantial numbers of children of pre-school age already attending nursery schools or primary schools. I do not want to bandy or quarrel about figures, but I want to give


the figures as we have them in the Department.
In January 1974 there were some 140,000 children attending maintained nursery schools or nursery classes, and additionally about 280,000 children under five attending other classes in maintained primary schools. These figures amount to about 28 per cent. of children aged 3 and 4. They include both full-time and part-time pupils, but not pupils at independent or direct grant nursery schools— nearly 50,000—nor the very large number of children attending voluntary playgroups.
Voluntary playgroups and day nurseries make a substantial contribution to meeting the needs of young children before they reach school age. These services, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, and I assure the House that my Department works closely with the Department of Health and Social Security, and we have an inter-departmental consultative group dealing with provision for the under-fives.
I pay tribute to the Nursery School Association, the Pre-School Playgroups Association and others concerned with children under five. Effective consultation and co-operation is important at local authority level. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Nursery School Association, for instance, came to see us and suggested that we ought to have local co-ordinating committees which would examine all the valuable suggestions, such as those made by the hon. Gentleman, concerning supermarkets, libraries, museums, and all the available space or accommodation in each authority's area. That will enable playgroups and all those concerned with the under-fives to work together and make the best use of available resources. We are looking at that sympathetically and working with DHSS to consider what should be the next step.
In a number of areas local committees have been set up to bring together all those who have responsibilities for young children, including the relevant voluntary bodies which have an important part to play. Those committees have a valuable contribution to make. My Department and the DHSS are also co-operating in the

experimental development of combined centres for nursery education and day care. Eight experimental centres for that purpose have been established under the urban programme and the two Departments are at present engaged in their evaluation.
I will say a word about staffing, which is important. The expansion of nursery education clearly requires increased numbers of nursery teachers and nursery assistants. The output from the colleges of education is expected to be fully sufficient to meet the need for nursery teachers, particularly when account is taken of the increased number of in-service courses available to enable teachers who wish to do so to change to teaching younger children. These courses for conversion to nursery teaching are run in colleges of education. One-year courses are biased towards the administrative aspects of nursery education and one-term courses are concerned purely with teaching. There are nine one-year courses and 54 one-term courses already established, and they are widely spread geographically so as to provide accessibility to all who might wish to enrol and to train.
In addition, local education authorities have increased the provisions of courses leading to the National Nursery Examination Board Certificate, so that training should be available in most cases for the many women and girls interested in work as nursery nurses and nursery assistants helping qualified teachers in nursery schools and classes.
The hon. Gentleman is pushing at an open door. We have made the commitment and we shall honour it. We regard it as an essential educational advance. If we are to provide equality of opportunity and to give the opportunity for full growth to maturity to the children who in the past have lived in areas where equality of opportunity has been an impossibility, we must concentrate more on nursery education. I assure the House that that is our commitment and we are determined, despite the economic difficulty, that more and more of our children, particularly those in greatest need, will have the advantage of pre-school education.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock a.m.